Opinion
14-P-278
02-25-2015
ANNE M. NELSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, & others.
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 sole matter before us is the propriety of an order of a single justice of this court, entered on February 12, 2014, denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to docket her appeal late. We review the action of the single justice on such a motion for abuse of discretion. See Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 378 (1975). We discern no abuse of discretion, if for no other reason than that the record presented by the plaintiff does not include either the order of the single justice or the memoranda and other record materials presented to the single justice in support of her motion. See E.H.S. v. K.E.S., 424 Mass. 1011, 1012 (1997). In any event, to the extent the single justice might have rested his denial of the plaintiff's motion on a failure to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious issue on appeal, ample basis for such a view appears in the arguments and authorities cited in the brief of defendant-appellees GMAC Mortgage, LLC, and Fannie Mae.
Because the single justice denied the plaintiff's request for leave to docket her appeal late from a Superior Court order denying her second motion for a new trial, under Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), the merits of the Superior Court order are not before us. Of course, an appeal from the denial of a rule 60(b) motion would not in any event bring before us any question of the validity of the underlying judgment. See O'Malley v. O'Malley, 419 Mass. 377, 381-382 & n.6 (1995).
Order of single justice affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Green & Meade, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: February 25, 2015.