Property Acquisition Group, LLC v. Steven A. Lippi.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: August 18, 2025
• Docket: 23-P-1363
• Status: Unpublished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

23-P-1363

PROPERTY ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC

vs.

STEVEN A. LIPPI.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant appeals from a Housing Court judge's order

denying his motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal.

The defendant argues that a COVID-19 eviction moratorium

prohibited both the eviction and the judge's orders permitting

the plaintiff to seek further discovery after obtaining judgment

in its favor. We affirm.

Background. This appeal arises from a postforeclosure

action for summary process. The underlying summary process

action was an eviction following a foreclosure sale of a

property located in Malden. On January 13, 2020, the plaintiff

initiated the summary process action against the defendant. On

February 14, 2020, the judge entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. On November 5, 2020, the defendant filed an appeal

from the judgment. On December 15, 2020, the defendant moved to

vacate the judgment. The judge denied this motion on January

29, 2021. The defendant filed an appeal from the denial of his

motion to vacate on March 1, 2021, over one month after the

judge denied the motion. On May 3, 2021, the plaintiff filed a

motion to dismiss the defendant's two appeals. On June 14,

2021, the judge allowed the motion to dismiss.

Following the February 14, 2020 judgment, the plaintiff

sought further discovery from the defendant. On January 29,

2021, the judge allowed the plaintiff's motion for discovery.

On July 19, 2021, the judge granted the plaintiff an

execution for possession of the premises. On July 28, 2021, the

plaintiff levied on the execution and took possession of the

premises by constable. The defendant has not occupied the

premises since. On May 5, 2022, the plaintiff sold the

property.

On September 11, 2023, the defendant moved for leave to

file a late notice of appeal. On October 5, 2023, a different

judge denied this motion. The defendant filed an appeal from

this denial.

Discussion. The plaintiff argues that the defendant's

appeal is barred by G. L. c. 239, § 5 (a). We agree.

2 "A party seeking to appeal from a judgment in a summary

process action 'shall file a notice of appeal with the court

within [ten] days after the entry of the judgment.'" Wells

Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Mondi, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 280, 282

(2020), quoting G. L. c. 239, § 5 (a). This "period is fixed by

statute and is jurisdictional." Jones v. Manns, 33 Mass. App.

Ct. 485, 489 (1992). "[O]ur courts have ruled in numerous

contexts that, where an appeal period is set by statute, a court

lacks the authority to enlarge it." Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l

Ass'n, supra at 283, citing Commonwealth v. Claudio, 96 Mass.

App. Ct. 787, 793-794 (2020).

Here, the defendant moved for leave to file a late notice

of appeal on September 11, 2023, more than three years after the

judge entered judgment for the plaintiff and well exceeding the

ten-day limit prescribed by statute. See Wells Fargo Bank,

Nat'l Ass'n, 98 Mass. App. Ct. at 282, quoting G. L. c. 239,

§ 5 (a). We cannot reach the defendant's arguments regarding

the propriety of his eviction and the judge's discovery orders

because the judge lacked the authority to extend the appeal

period. See Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, supra at 283, citing

Claudio, 96 Mass. App. Ct. at 793-794. Therefore, the judge did

3 not err in denying the defendant's request for leave to file a

late appeal.

Order affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, Shin & Tan, JJ. 1),

Clerk

Entered: August 18, 2025.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.