Finnegan v. Chandler Street Motor Mart

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Finnegan v. Chandler Street Motor Mart

1987 Mass. App. Div. 138, 1987 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 31

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedJuly 27, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 1987 Mass. App. Div. 138 (Finnegan v. Chandler Street Motor Mart) 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

Finnegan v. Chandler Street Motor Mart, 1987 Mass. App. Div. 138, 1987 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 31 (Mass. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Turcotte, P. J.

The judge found a violation of Chapter 93A arising out of the sale of an automobile and awarded treble damages, attorneys’fees and costs to the plaintiff. Judgment entered on January 3, 1986. On September 26, 1986, the judge allowed a motion to amend the complaint and the defendant’s name to Park Auto Corp., d/b/a Downtown Motor Sales; and by adding an individual defendant. The judge also ordered judgment and execution “to reflect” the amendments. The defendant claims to be aggrieved by the amendments and the order. No service was made on Park Auto Corp., or on the individual. No attorney appeared for either.

A party who seeks to amend a complaint after final judgment should first-file a motion to alter, set aside, or vacate the judgment pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 59 (e) or 60 (b)¹ Scott Bengar & another v. Clark Equipment Company, 24 Mass. App. 41 (1987). A motion to amend by adding defendants after judgment pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 15² is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. An amendment should be allowed unless some good reason appears for denying it. Scott Bengar & another v. Clark Equipment Company supra. Once a party has been added by amendment the new party, corporate or individual, must be served with process in accordance with Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 4.³ The order changing the judgment and execution without process and an opportunity to defend, is reversed.⁴

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

Turcotte, P. J.

The judge found a violation of Chapter 93A arising out of the sale of an automobile and awarded treble damages, attorneys’fees and costs to the plaintiff. Judgment entered on January 3, 1986. On September 26, 1986, the judge allowed a motion to amend the complaint and the defendant’s name to Park Auto Corp., d/b/a Downtown Motor Sales; and by adding an individual defendant. The judge also ordered judgment and execution “to reflect” the amendments. The defendant claims to be aggrieved by the amendments and the order. No service was made on Park Auto Corp., or on the individual. No attorney appeared for either.

A party who seeks to amend a complaint after final judgment should first-file a motion to alter, set aside, or vacate the judgment pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 59 (e) or 60 (b)¹ Scott Bengar & another v. Clark Equipment Company, 24 Mass. App. 41 (1987). A motion to amend by adding defendants after judgment pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 15² is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. An amendment should be allowed unless some good reason appears for denying it. Scott Bengar & another v. Clark Equipment Company supra. Once a party has been added by amendment the new party, corporate or individual, must be served with process in accordance with Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 4.³ The order changing the judgment and execution without process and an opportunity to defend, is reversed.⁴

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1987 Mass. App. Div. 138, 1987 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnegan-v-chandler-street-motor-mart-massdistctapp-1987.