Wallenstein v. Ballou

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Wallenstein v. Ballou

1996 Mass. App. Div. 129, 1996 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 59

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedAugust 5, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Mass. App. Div. 129 (Wallenstein v. Ballou) 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

Wallenstein v. Ballou, 1996 Mass. App. Div. 129, 1996 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 59 (Mass. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, J.

The plaintiff sent a 93A letter to the defendant concerning a complaint that arose from a rental of the defendant’s house by the plaintiff. The evidence indicates that the plaintiff received a receipt for the 93A letter. The defendant later did not claim a certified letter that was sent to his last known address. The defendant did not return numerous phone calls that were made to a phone number where she had an answering machine. The defendant could not be contacted at her last known address by a constable who made a search for the defendant at an address given to the plaintiff by the real estate agent of the defendant. The plaintiff then under the statute, with the permission of the Court, published notice of suit.

Judgment entered against the defendant by default on July 6, 1994. One year after entry of judgment, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment which was denied. We affirm.

We find, as a fact, that the plaintiff did everything reasonably calculated to give proper notice to the defendant, Liarikos v. Mello, 418 Mass. 669 (1994); and Boston v. James, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 625 (1988).

We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial judge.

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

Martin, J.

The plaintiff sent a 93A letter to the defendant concerning a complaint that arose from a rental of the defendant’s house by the plaintiff. The evidence indicates that the plaintiff received a receipt for the 93A letter. The defendant later did not claim a certified letter that was sent to his last known address. The defendant did not return numerous phone calls that were made to a phone number where she had an answering machine. The defendant could not be contacted at her last known address by a constable who made a search for the defendant at an address given to the plaintiff by the real estate agent of the defendant. The plaintiff then under the statute, with the permission of the Court, published notice of suit.

Judgment entered against the defendant by default on July 6, 1994. One year after entry of judgment, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment which was denied. We affirm.

We find, as a fact, that the plaintiff did everything reasonably calculated to give proper notice to the defendant, Liarikos v. Mello, 418 Mass. 669 (1994); and Boston v. James, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 625 (1988).

We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Mass. App. Div. 129, 1996 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallenstein-v-ballou-massdistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack