From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baybank Middlesex v. Murdza

Massachusetts Appellate Division, Northern District
Jul 31, 1981
1981 Mass. App. Div. 157 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

July 31, 1981.

Present: Cowdrey, P.J., Forte Banks, JJ.

Practice, Civil, Appellate division: right to review; Dismissal of draft report; Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule (64)(c)(6). Real Property, Attachment

Report of court's dismissal of plaintiff's draft report. Action heard in the Woburn Division by Gonnella, J.

Lawrence J. Crowley, Jr., for the plaintiff.

Louis Jacobs for the defendant.



This is a petition to establish a draft report which was dismissed by the trial justice.

In electing to proceed by way of petition, the plaintiff has misconstrued his remedy and has thereby forfeited any right to appellate review. Pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 64 (c) (6), the dismissal of the plaintiff's draft report could have been considered by this Division solely upon a report of said dismissal order. Gallagher v. Atkins, 305 Mass. 261, 263-264 (1940); Dumas v. Griffin, 53 Mass. App. Dec. 167, 171 (1974). As the plaintiff's draft report was dismissed rather than disallowed, there is presently no report on file in the trial court which could be established upon petition by this Division. Comfort Air Systems v. Cacopardo, 370 Mass. 255, 258 (1976); Farrar v. Hupper, 59 Mass. App. Dec. 91, 92 (1976).

In any event, we note by way of dictum that there was no apparent error in the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's draft report. Said draft challenged the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for a real estate attachment. The trial court properly ruled that a "real estate attachment is discretionary with the court." General Laws c. 223, § 42 states that "all real and personal property . . . may be attached. . ." [emphasis supplied]. Similarly, Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 4.1 (c) provides that an order for approval of an attachment may be entered only after notice and hearing and upon specified findings by the court. The permissive rather than mandatory terminology of the statute and rule establish that a motion for a real estate attachment does rest within the sound discretion of a trial justice. See J. SMITH and H. ZOBEL, Rules Practice, § 4.1.11, p. 107 (6 Mass. Practice Series, 1974).

As there is no evidence in the plaintiff's draft report of an abuse of such discretion by the trial court, no question of law was presented thereby. A draft report which presents no issue of law for appellate review is properly dismissed.

Petition denied.


Summaries of

Baybank Middlesex v. Murdza

Massachusetts Appellate Division, Northern District
Jul 31, 1981
1981 Mass. App. Div. 157 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Baybank Middlesex v. Murdza

Case Details

Full title:Baybank Middlesex vs. Richard J. Murdza

Court:Massachusetts Appellate Division, Northern District

Date published: Jul 31, 1981

Citations

1981 Mass. App. Div. 157 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Citing Cases

Rice v. Yeghiayan

Murphy v. Hamed, 1985 Mass. App. Div. 30, 31; Brooks v. Hautala, 1984 Mass. App. Div. 254, 255; Theurer, Inc.…

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Daniel

It is an elementary tenet of Appellate Division procedure that the exclusive remedy for the dismissal of a…