Corcoran Management Co. v. Michaelangelo

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Corcoran Management Co. v. Michaelangelo

1996 Mass. App. Div. 130

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedAugust 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1996 Mass. App. Div. 130 (Corcoran Management Co. v. Michaelangelo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Corcoran Management Co. v. Michaelangelo, 1996 Mass. App. Div. 130 (Mass. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Minehan, J.

This is an appeal, by defendant Margaret Drew, of a denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. The underlying action is a summary process complaint brought by plaintiff, Corcoran Management Co., Inc., as agent for Faxon Commons, against defendants Tanya Michaelangelo and Margaret Drew.

On June 22, 1995, plaintiff and defendant Michaelangelo entered into an agreement for judgment in Quincy District Court. Despite there being no judgment against defendant Drew, on July 5,1995 a writ of execution issued against both defendant Michaelan-gelo and defendant Drew.

Defendant Drew filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. In support of the motion, defendant Drew argued that she was not properly served with a copy of the complaint and the summons. Defendant Drew also argued that plaintiff has erroneously named Ms. Drew as a defendant in her individual rather than fiduciary capacity. Defendant Drew’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint was denied. Defendant Drew appeals from the denial of the motion to dismiss. Defendant argues that the judge abused his discretion by failing to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

The Appellate Division of the District Court does not have jurisdiction to review summary process cases. Labao v. Rudnicki, 357 Mass. 772 (1970). The subject of appeals in summary process actions is strictly governed by G.L.c. 239, §3, which provides that in the case of an appeal from the District Court on either or both issues involved or on any counterclaim, the appeal shall be to the Superior Court. It has also been held that there is no jurisdiction in the Appellate Division over an appeal from a denial of a motion for relief from judgment in a summary process case. Emerson v. Dubois, 1989 Mass. App. Div. 160; Pine Hill Estates Inc. v. Stone, 1986 Mass. App. Div. 99.

The defendant’s appeal is dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Minehan, J.

This is an appeal, by defendant Margaret Drew, of a denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. The underlying action is a summary process complaint brought by plaintiff, Corcoran Management Co., Inc., as agent for Faxon Commons, against defendants Tanya Michaelangelo and Margaret Drew.

On June 22, 1995, plaintiff and defendant Michaelangelo entered into an agreement for judgment in Quincy District Court. Despite there being no judgment against defendant Drew, on July 5,1995 a writ of execution issued against both defendant Michaelan-gelo and defendant Drew.

Defendant Drew filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. In support of the motion, defendant Drew argued that she was not properly served with a copy of the complaint and the summons. Defendant Drew also argued that plaintiff has erroneously named Ms. Drew as a defendant in her individual rather than fiduciary capacity. Defendant Drew’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint was denied. Defendant Drew appeals from the denial of the motion to dismiss. Defendant argues that the judge abused his discretion by failing to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

The Appellate Division of the District Court does not have jurisdiction to review summary process cases. Labao v. Rudnicki, 357 Mass. 772 (1970). The subject of appeals in summary process actions is strictly governed by G.L.c. 239, §3, which provides that in the case of an appeal from the District Court on either or both issues involved or on any counterclaim, the appeal shall be to the Superior Court. It has also been held that there is no jurisdiction in the Appellate Division over an appeal from a denial of a motion for relief from judgment in a summary process case. Emerson v. Dubois, 1989 Mass. App. Div. 160; Pine Hill Estates Inc. v. Stone, 1986 Mass. App. Div. 99.

The defendant’s appeal is dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Mass. App. Div. 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corcoran-management-co-v-michaelangelo-massdistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack