L.G. v. G.J.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

L.G. v. G.J.

DecidedNovember 19, 2025

Docket25-P-0011

StatusUnpublished

This text of L.G. v. G.J. (L.G. v. G.J.) 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

L.G. v. G.J., (Mass. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

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

25-P-11

L.G.

vs.

G.J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant appeals from an order extending a harassment

prevention order, issued in favor of the plaintiff following a

two-party hearing. See G. L. c. 258E, § 3. We affirm.

In reviewing the limited record on appeal, it appears the

defendant and plaintiff were neighbors. On November 13, 2024,

an ex parte harassment prevention order issued against the

defendant, presumably based on an affidavit supporting the

plaintiff's complaint, in which the plaintiff claimed that the

defendant had committed three or more acts of harassment against

her. See G. L. c. 258E, § 1; Gassman v. Reason, 90 Mass. App.

Ct. 1, 7 (2016). On November 21, 2024, a District Court judge

held a two-party hearing after notice to the plaintiff and the defendant. Both parties appeared at the hearing. We have no

transcript of the hearing, however, and the record does not

otherwise reflect what occurred beyond the declarations made by

the plaintiff in the supplemental affidavit and the defendant's

denials written on the affidavit.1 Following the hearing, the

judge extended the harassment prevention order for one year, and

the defendant timely appealed.

Discussion. "The burden is on the appellant to ensure that

an adequate record exists for an appellate court to evaluate."

Openshaw v. Openshaw, 493 Mass. 599, 611 n.21 (2024), quoting

Commonwealth v. Woods, 419 Mass. 366, 371 (1995). "An

appellant's obligation to include those parts of the trial

transcript and copies of motions which are essential for review

of the issues raised on appeal . . . is a fundamental and long-

standing rule of appellate civil practice" (quotation and

citation omitted). Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 84

(1995). See Mass. R. A. P. 8 (a)-(c), as appearing in 481 Mass.

1611 (2019); Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass.

1637 (2019).

1 While the defendant, representing herself on appeal, recounts in her informal appellate filings what she contends happened at the hearing, such allegations do not constitute record evidence.

2 Setting aside the other deficiencies in her appellate

filings,2 the defendant has failed to provide a transcript of the

hearing. Where her arguments revolve around the alleged

insufficiency of the plaintiff's showing, as well as other

improprieties she contends occurred at the hearing, we are

unable to review the merits of the defendant's claims.3 To

attempt such review without the transcript would require us to

engage in speculation. Contrast Matter of M.C., 481 Mass. 336,

345 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bottiglio, 357 Mass. 593,

597 (1970) (incomplete record sufficient to permit review where

2 Without deciding, we note that appellant's brief appears to have been created through misuse of a generative artificial intelligence tool, as none of the cases cited correspond to existing cases.

3 We do note, with respect to the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's allegations were not credible, that on appellate review "[w]e accord the credibility determinations of the judge who heard the testimony of the parties . . . [and] observed their demeanor . . . the utmost deference [quotations and citations omitted]." Noelle N. v. Frasier F., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 660, 664 (2020).

3 court was not required to "resort to speculation").

Accordingly, we must affirm the order.

Order entered November 21, 2024, affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono, Desmond & Toone, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: November 19, 2025.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

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

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).