Mastrocola v. Filler

1990 Mass. App. Div. 161
CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division
DecidedSeptember 24, 1990
StatusPublished

This text of 1990 Mass. App. Div. 161 (Mastrocola v. Filler) 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
Mastrocola v. Filler, 1990 Mass. App. Div. 161 (Mass. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Dolan, P.J.

This petition to establish a report arises from an action of deceit in which plaintiffs complain that they suffered damages as a result of defendants’ false statements concerning the condition of a septic system and the location of the boundaiy lines on property sold by defendants to plaintiffs. The trial judge allowed [162]*162both of plaintiffs’ requests for rulings of law,3 made no special findings of fact, and found for the defendants. Plaintiffs claimed a report and filed a draft report

After a hearing, the trial judge dismissed the report for the reason that he allowed, rather than denied, plaintiffs’ requests for rulings of law, and that the report attempts to raise an issue not raised by a request for a ruling of law made during the course of or at the conclusion of the trial.4

In this case, the trial judge and the plaintiffs agree as to the elements of a deceit cause of action. Plaintiffs do not allege that the trial judge was in error in allowing their requests for rulings of law. However, plaintiffs now wish to raise the issue of law as to whether a finding for them was required by the evidence.

In order to preserve their right to such a review, it was essential that they timely present a request for such a ruling. Baker v. Davis, 299 Mass. 345, 348 (1938). There are few propositions of more pervasive precedental impact than the rule which provides that a party may not raise and argue on appeal, as of right, legal issues where no requests for rulings addressing those issues have been filed with the trial court. Chicoine v. Sonneman, 1982 Mass. App. Div. 256, 257. Appellants are mistaken if they believe that they are entitled to have their appeal heard as of right so long as their appeal presents a meritorious issue. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Healy Corp., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 43, 62 (1977).5

Petition Denied.

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

Related

Baker v. Davis
12 N.E.2d 816 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Healy Corp.
359 N.E.2d 634 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1977)
Chicoine v. Sonneman
1982 Mass. App. Div. 256 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1990 Mass. App. Div. 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mastrocola-v-filler-massdistctapp-1990.