Woodview Apartments, LLC v. Classie Robinson.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: October 31, 2024
• Docket: 22-P-1246
• Status: Unpublished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

22-P-1246

WOODVIEW APARTMENTS, LLC

vs.

CLASSIE ROBINSON.1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The tenant, Classie Robinson, appeals from a judgment in a

summary process case in the Housing Court awarding the landlord,

Woodview Apartments, LLC, possession, costs, and past due rent.

Unable to determine whether there was error because the

appellant has provided an inadequate record for review, we

affirm.

The summary process trial began on October 19, 2021, and

the trial judge thereafter issued findings of fact and an

interim order, concluding that the tenant owed the landlord

1The summary process complaint also listed Jahman Dawkins as a defendant. The judge dismissed the case against Dawkins, who did not appear to be a resident of the apartment and is not listed on the lease. $10,125 and directing her to apply for rental assistance by

October 29, 2021. Although the tenant did not include a

transcript of this day of trial, one was filed with the Housing

Court, and we have reviewed it. All of the factual findings in

the interim order are well supported by the record, and we

discern no clear error. See South Boston Elderly Residences,

Inc. v. Moynahan, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 455, 462 (2017), quoting

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Schumacher, 467 Mass. 421, 427 (2014)

(in reviewing summary process factual findings after bench

trial, "we accept the judge's findings of fact unless they are

clearly erroneous").2

A second day of trial, presumably to discuss the results of

the rental assistance process, was held on June 9, 2022. Based

on the testimony on that day, the judge found that the rental

assistance application failed because the tenant "declined to

sign a payment plan," which she did on the ground that "she does

not owe rent, because she has made all the payments." The judge

stated that the tenant "presented no support for this position

and the court does not credit this statement."

2 Similarly, we see no error in the trial judge's failure to find a breach of the warranty of habitability. Although the tenant testified that repairs were needed to the refrigerator and the bathtub, she also testified that she "decided not to have it done" because of the pandemic. Obviously, the April 2022 inspection form in the tenant's record appendix did not exist in October 2019.

2 The tenant appears to challenge these findings, but we have

no way to review them. The tenant has not provided us with a

transcript of the June 9, 2022, hearing, and thus we cannot

determine whether the evidence at that hearing supported the

trial judge's findings. "We stress that it is an appellant's

duty to produce an appendix containing all portions of the

record relevant to the issues raised on appeal." Friedman v.

Division of Admin. Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 821

(2024), quoting Lodigiani v. Paré, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 140, 141

n.3 (2023). "That a transcript must be submitted to support a

claim that the evidence was insufficient is not some

hypertechnical requirement, but a reflection of the fact that

resolution of such a claim requires the reviewing court to see

the entirety of the evidence that was presented." United Steel

Workers of Am. v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 74

Mass. App. Ct. 656, 661 (2009), quoting Covell v. Department of

Social Servs., 439 Mass. 766, 782 (2003). In the absence of a

3 transcript, the tenant has failed to establish that the trial

judge erred, and we must affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Blake, Ditkoff & D'Angelo, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: October 31, 2024.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.