South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. v. Moynahan
88 Mass. App. Ct. 742, 41 N.E.3d 757 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Mass.R.A.P. 10(c), if an appellant cures a procedural noncompliance, such as the late filing of a transcript, prior to the lower court's hearing on a motion to dismiss for that noncompliance, the cure must be deemed timely and the appeal cannot be dismissed, even if the delay was a result of inexcusable neglect.
Facts:
- Following an adverse judgment in a housing case, tenant Gerald Moynahan initiated an appeal against his landlord, South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. (SBER).
- Moynahan's counsel received the completed trial transcript on February 18, 2014.
- Counsel was scheduled to undergo spinal surgery and, anticipating a long recovery, intentionally decided to postpone filing the transcript until he returned to work.
- Moynahan's counsel filed the transcript with the court on December 12, 2014, approximately ten months after receiving it.
- During the period of delay, Moynahan continued to pay his rent to SBER.
Procedural Posture:
- South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. (SBER) obtained a judgment against Gerald Moynahan in a summary process action in the Boston Division of the Housing Court Department (trial court).
- Moynahan, the tenant-defendant, filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
- More than one year later, SBER, the appellee, filed a motion in the Housing Court to dismiss Moynahan's appeal for undue delay in filing the trial transcript.
- The Housing Court judge allowed SBER's motion, finding Moynahan's counsel had committed inexcusable neglect, and dismissed the appeal.
- Moynahan, the appellant, appealed the order dismissing his appeal to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Mass.R.A.P. 10(c) require a lower court to deny a motion to dismiss an appeal for inexcusable neglect if the appellant cures the procedural defect before the hearing on the motion?
Opinions:
Majority - Blake, J.
Yes. Mass.R.A.P. 10(c) compels a lower court to deny a motion to dismiss if the appellant has cured the noncompliance prior to the hearing on the motion. The rule's cure provision states that such compliance 'shall be deemed timely,' removing the judge's discretion to dismiss the appeal even upon a finding of inexcusable neglect. While the court did not condone counsel’s intentional manipulation of the appellate timeline, the plain and compulsory language of the rule is binding on judges. Furthermore, the appellee, SBER, was not without a remedy, as it could have moved to dismiss the appeal much earlier rather than waiting ten months. SBER also failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the delay, particularly since Moynahan continued to pay rent throughout the period.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets the mandatory language of the procedural 'cure provision' in Mass.R.A.P. 10(c), establishing that an appellant's subjective intent or inexcusable neglect is irrelevant if a procedural defect is cured before the dismissal hearing. It places the onus on appellees to be vigilant and proactive in 'policing the progress of an appeal' by filing prompt motions to dismiss. The ruling solidifies that procedural rules must be applied as written, even if the outcome in a particular case may seem to reward an attorney's deliberate delay.
