Federico v. Ragusa

1990 Mass. App. Div. 93
CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division
DecidedJune 26, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1990 Mass. App. Div. 93 (Federico v. Ragusa) 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
Federico v. Ragusa, 1990 Mass. App. Div. 93 (Mass. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Kane, J.

This is a petition to establish a draft report Appellants, the defendants below, by their report allege that the trial judge was in error in denying their motion to remove a default and by awarding damages in an amount greater than that sought before the default.

The trial judgedisallowedadraftreportforthereasonsthatcertainclaimsoferror were not seasonably raised,3 that the report is “vague and contains several non-[94]*94related matters" and that it is not conformable to the facts as presented to the court and contains extraneous and inappropriate matter.4 Such disallowance came five days after the filing of the draft report and occurred in the absence of a hearing to settle the report. We find error.

Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 64 (c) (4) requires a hearing to be held on a draft report unless the trial judge intends to allow the draft report as submitted. A hearing, according to Rule 64 (c) (4), is to settle the report Black’s Law Dictionary II defines “settle” to mean reaching an agreement In the context of Rule 64(c) (4), “settle” means that the appellant be given the opportunity to agree to the trial judge’s proposed deletions or additions to the report No such opportunity having been given to the appellants, we remand for the hearing required by Rule 64 (c) (4). To the extent appellants refuse to modify the report in accordance with the trial judge’s proposed deletions, additions, or changes with respect to form, these specific deletions, additions, or directions should be incorporated by the trial judge in his findings and reasons for disallowance.

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

Related

Ford v. Doulos-Ayers
1991 Mass. App. Div. 85 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1991)
Diletizia v. Merowitz
1990 Mass. App. Div. 125 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1990 Mass. App. Div. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federico-v-ragusa-massdistctapp-1990.