Opinion
16-P-1202
04-21-2017
A.N. v. R.D.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its 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 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).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff appeals from an order of a single justice of this court, denying her motion to stay the execution of a judgment of divorce nisi pending appeal, pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 6, as appearing in 454 Mass. 1601 (2009). Preceding the single justice's order, was an order by a judge of the Probate and Family Court denying a similar motion. The appeal before us concerns only the order of the single justice. We affirm.
The plaintiff's brief does not include the motion to stay that she brought before the single justice. It is therefore, subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Mass.R.A.P. 16(a), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). Nonetheless, we consider her arguments.
Instead, the plaintiff provides the motion that she brought before the Probate and Family Court judge.
We review the single justice's determination for abuse of discretion. See Cartledge v. Evans, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 577, 578 (2006). At oral argument, the plaintiff informed the panel that one of the issues that she raises on appeal, in regard to the order requiring her to refinance mortgages, has been disposed of. As to her other claims, the plaintiff has failed to make a showing that the single justice abused her discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to stay pending appeal. See ibid. See also Gifford v. Gifford, 451 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2008), quoting from Mezoff v. Cudnohufsky, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 874, 874 (1977) ("'Rarely, if ever, can it be said that a single justice is in error in denying relief' under Mass.R.A.P. 6").
Therefore, the single justice's order denying the requested stay must be affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Trainor, Henry & Sacks, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: April 21, 2017.