Opinion
15-P-1048
04-01-2016
ANNE B. ELSAID v. MICHAEL A. ELSAID.
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
On September 10, 2014, in an unpublished memorandum issued pursuant to our rule 1:28, a panel of this court remanded Michael A. Elsaid's appeal from various orders and judgments of the Probate and Family Court to that court, for action only on Michael's December 13, 2012, motion to vacate judgments entered on December 7, 2012. Elsaid v. Elsaid, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 (2014). The panel affirmed the remaining orders and judgments. Ibid. On April 17, 2015, an evidentiary hearing on Michael's motion to vacate took place before a different judge of the Probate and Family Court. That judge denied the motion, and Michael moved for reconsideration. In a decision dated June 24, 2015, nunc pro tunc to April 17, 2015, the judge denied Michael's motion for reconsideration in a written memorandum of decision. Acting pro se, Michael appeals.
The December 7, 2012, judgments dismissed Michael's complaints for modification of child support and custody, and allowed a counterclaim for modification by Anne B. Elsaid.
Discussion. A motion brought under Mass.R.Dom.Rel.P. 60(b), "is addressed to the discretion of the judge," whose "decision will not be reversed on appeal save for abuse." Dalessio v. Dalessio, 409 Mass. 821, 833 (1991), quoting from Bird v. Ross, 393 Mass. 789, 791 (1985) (quotations omitted). The judge denied Michael's rule 60(b) motion and his motion for reconsideration because Michael "provided no new circumstances that would allow the Court to reopen the matters that were earlier addressed." Michael does not argue that her decisions constituted abuses of discretion, and we see none where there was no evidence that anything had changed since the underlying judgments were affirmed by a panel of this court.
Orders denying motion to vacate and for reconsideration affirmed.
By the Court (Wolohojian, Carhart & Kinder, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk
Entered: April 1, 2016.