CITIZENS BANK, N.A. v. ANGEL MARTINEZ & Others.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

CITIZENS BANK, N.A. v. ANGEL MARTINEZ & Others.

DecidedNovember 3, 2025

Docket24-P-1340

StatusUnpublished

This text of CITIZENS BANK, N.A. v. ANGEL MARTINEZ & Others. (CITIZENS BANK, N.A. v. ANGEL MARTINEZ & Others.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CITIZENS BANK, N.A. v. ANGEL MARTINEZ & Others., (Mass. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

24-P-1340

CITIZENS BANK, N.A.

vs.

ANGEL MARTINEZ & others. 1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a foreclosure sale, the plaintiff, Citizens Bank,

N.A., commenced a summary process action in the Housing Court

against the defendants, Angel Martinez, Alice Martinez, and

Victor Bonilla. Following a trial, a judgment entered in favor

of the plaintiff for possession and damages. The defendants

appeal, and we affirm.

The defendants assert that the trial judge committed five

errors related to findings of fact. We are unable to review the

substance of these claims primarily because the record lacks a

transcript of the trial. "The burden is on the appellant to

ensure that an adequate record exists for an appellate court to

1 Alice Martinez and Victor Bonilla. evaluate." Commonwealth v. Woods, 419 Mass. 366, 371 (1995).

See Mass. R. A. P. 8 (a)-(c), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1611

(2019); Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637

(2019). In the present case, the defendants (who are the

appellants) have not met their burden of presenting us with a

record of the trial. We are left without any basis to assess

the merits of claims that have been raised on appeal.

Accordingly, we must affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Hand, Hodgens & Tan, JJ. 2),

Clerk

Entered: November 3, 2025.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).