From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brine v. Mignosa

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Dec 14, 2011
11-P-164 (Mass. Dec. 14, 2011)

Opinion

11-P-164

12-14-2011

BEVERLY E. BRINE v. ANDREW MIGNOSA & another.


NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The plaintiff, Beverly E. Brine, believes herself to be the victim of malicious neighbors, who -- since 1999, she claims -- have damaged her property and generally harassed her, and have been aided by the indifference or perhaps tacit encouragement of members of the Quincy police department and the district attorney's office. The last of her alleged 'documented instances' of abuse apparently took place in June or July, 2007.

Having received no satisfaction from the police or the district attorney's office, the plaintiff apparently filed in the Superior Court a complaint for protection from harassment under G. L. c. 258E, a copy of which she has failed to include in her record appendix. According to the docket sheet, the Superior Court judge, apparently the same day, denied the petition after a hearing. Once again, what transpired at that hearing is unknown to us as a copy of the transcript also has not been provided. In addition to the lack of a transcript, the appendix is also grossly deficient. Lastly, it is difficult to understand the plaintiff's single-page argument, written without citation to any supporting legal authority.

This chapter generally allows a person 'suffering from harassment,' as defined, to file a complaint for a civil restraining order. G. L. c. 258E, § 3(a), inserted by St. 2010, c. 23.

In her notice of appeal, the plaintiff charges that the judge denied her petition because 'the dates of June and July of 2007 were too late to be considered.' Unfortunately, there is no supporting evidence to support this general statement.

For instance, while it appears her action is directed against two of her neighbors, she names a number of people and public officials as being responsible for her plight.

We therefore decline to consider the plaintiff's arguments on appeal. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975); Martins v. University of Mass. Med. Sch., 75 Mass. App. Ct. 623, 633 (2009) ('Because [the appellant's] short conclusory argument in his brief falls below acceptable appellate standards, we deem these claims waived'). See also Mass.R.A.P. 18(a), as amended, 425 Mass. 1602 (1997); Kunen v. First Agric. Natl. Bank of Berkshire County, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 684, 689 (1978) ('The burden is on the appellant to provide [the appellate] court with an appendix sufficient to support its points on appeal'), quoting from United States v. One Motor Yacht Named Mercury, 527 F.2d 1112, 1113-1114 (1st Cir. 1975).

Our decision should not be read as condoning the behavior complained of by the plaintiff, should it have a basis in fact, nor do we mean to discourage her from seeking assistance as needed from legal authorities and advocates.

Order denying relief under G. L. c. 258E affirmed.

By the Court (Kantrowitz, Fecteau & Carhart, JJ.),


Summaries of

Brine v. Mignosa

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Dec 14, 2011
11-P-164 (Mass. Dec. 14, 2011)
Case details for

Brine v. Mignosa

Case Details

Full title:BEVERLY E. BRINE v. ANDREW MIGNOSA & another.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Dec 14, 2011

Citations

11-P-164 (Mass. Dec. 14, 2011)