Opinion
19-P-1176
01-04-2022
GAETANO ARRIA v. MARIA ZULLO CHESMORE.
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).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Maria Zullo Chesmore (wife) has timely appealed from an order of a judge of the Probate and Family Court granting the husband's motion for reconsideration or clarification of a judgment entered on December 20, 2018. In a separate case decided today, we have concluded that the same judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the wife's motion for leave to file a late appeal with respect to the direct appeal of the underlying judgment. Accordingly, the only matter properly before us is the judge's ruling on the husband's motion for reconsideration or clarification.
The sole issue clarified by the judge was that the husband did not owe the wife $10,100 related to debt the husband allegedly brought into the marriage. However, the wife has briefed the direct appeal, not the order granting the husband's motion for clarification. Absent a timely appeal we are without jurisdiction to hear the direct appeal on the merits, and the wife has waived any arguments unique to the motion for reconsideration or clarification by failing to brief them on appeal. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). See also Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lunenburg v. Housing Appeals Comm., 464 Mass. 38, 55 (2013) (arguments not made in appellate brief waived). The order dated March 14, 2019 clarifying the judgment of divorce must therefore be affirmed.
So ordered.
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.