HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. 1 MARK T. GODDARD & Another.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: June 2, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-0463
• Status: Unpublished

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-463

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

vs.

MARK T. GODDARD & another. 1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendants appeal from a summary judgment entered in

the Housing Court in a postforeclosure summary process action

which awarded the plaintiff possession of a home at 2 Everett

Street, Maynard, that was formerly owned and occupied by the

defendants. We affirm.

Discussion. "Appellate briefs must contain the contentions

of the appellants with respect to the issues presented, and the

reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes

and parts of the record relied on" (quotation omitted). Selmark

Assocs., Inc. v. Ehrlich, 467 Mass. 525, 540 (2014), quoting

Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).

1 Odette M. Goddard Here, the defendants' appeal purports to challenge the rulings

of five different Housing Court judges involved at various

stages of the proceedings. The defendants make claims based on

personal jurisdiction, service of process, due process,

constitutional violations, and judicial misconduct. Ultimately,

the defendants argue that summary judgment was improperly

entered because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to

which party had a "superior right to possession" of the

premises. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Morris, 490 Mass. 322, 326

(2022). However, the defendants do not cite any relevant legal

authority to support their arguments. 2 Instead, the defendants

support their contentions with snippets from what appear to be

unofficially transcribed portions of hearings before various

Housing Court judges. To the extent these "transcriptions"

constitute a record of prior proceedings, they largely consist

of words and phrases from which we are unable to discern any

clear meaning or connection to any issue before us in this

appeal. In short, because the defendants failed to comply with

2 The defendants cite to the "Equal Access to Justice Act," which they claim "protects indigent persons from being deprived of Equal Access to the Court." We are not aware of any such Massachusetts authority. If the defendants mean to refer to the Federal Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2812, that statute applies to litigation involving the Federal government and thus has no apparent relevance to this case.

2 the requirements of our appellate rules, they have waived all

issues raised in their appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Desmond, Sacks & Brennan, JJ. 3),

Clerk

Entered: June 2, 2025.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.