Galaris v. Cohen

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Galaris v. Cohen

330 N.E.2d 224, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 758

DecidedJune 3, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 330 N.E.2d 224 (Galaris v. Cohen) 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

Galaris v. Cohen, 330 N.E.2d 224, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 758 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants appeal from a Superior Court judge’s denial of their motion to recommit a master’s report for further findings of fact and from a final decree declaring a certain conveyance among the defendants fraudulent as to the plaintiff, a creditor of one of the defendants. The defendants do not dispute the propositions that their motion to recommit was procedurally defective because they filed no objections to the master’s report and that the motion to recommit was addressed to the discretion of the judge. Under these circumstances, we perceive no error in the denial of the motion to recommit, Kass v. Todd, 362 Mass. 169, 173 (1972), and cases cited, and we conclude that a proper decree was entered based on the master’s findings. DiMare v. Capaldi, 336 Mass. 497, 501 (1957). Connolly v. Commonwealth, 366 Mass. 435, 437 (1974).

Decree affirmed.

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

The defendants appeal from a Superior Court judge’s denial of their motion to recommit a master’s report for further findings of fact and from a final decree declaring a certain conveyance among the defendants fraudulent as to the plaintiff, a creditor of one of the defendants. The defendants do not dispute the propositions that their motion to recommit was procedurally defective because they filed no objections to the master’s report and that the motion to recommit was addressed to the discretion of the judge. Under these circumstances, we perceive no error in the denial of the motion to recommit, Kass v. Todd, 362 Mass. 169, 173 (1972), and cases cited, and we conclude that a proper decree was entered based on the master’s findings. DiMare v. Capaldi, 336 Mass. 497, 501 (1957). Connolly v. Commonwealth, 366 Mass. 435, 437 (1974).

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 N.E.2d 224, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galaris-v-cohen-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack