From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ham v. Finnigan

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Mar 13, 2012
11-P-716 (Mass. Mar. 13, 2012)

Opinion

11-P-716

03-13-2012

KATHRYN R. HAM, trustee, v. FRANCES A. FINNIGAN.


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

This is an appeal from an order of a single justice of the Appeals Court denying the defendant's motion to vacate a pending order of dismissal of the defendant's underlying appeal, 10-P-651, pursuant to the Appeals Court's Standing Order Concerning Dismissal of Appeals and Reports in All Cases for Lack of Prosecution.

Upon review of the briefs and record appendices, we discern no legal basis for disturbing the single justice order that denied the defendant's motion of February 14, 2011, to vacate the first step of the standing order, i.e., notice preceding dismissal. Notably, the order of dismissal entered on March 8, 2011. 'Decisions on requests for extension of time are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 378 (1975); Standard Register Co. v. Bolton-Emerson, Inc., 35 Mass. App. Ct. 570, 573-574 (1993). Discretion is deemed abused when 'its exercise has been characterized by arbitrary determination, capricious disposition, whimsical thinking, or idiosyncratic choice.' Greenleaf v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 22 Mass. App. Ct. 426, 429 (1986).' Lawrence Sav. Bank v. Garabedian, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 157, 161, S. C., 432 Mass. 1104 (2000). There was no abuse of discretion or error. It is apparent from our review of the record that the defendant has manifested a relaxed attitude toward the management of this case, and the late filings cannot be excused when, as here, they are due to the defendant's own carelessness.

Accordingly, the order of the single justice denying the defendant's motion to vacate the notice preceding dismissal of the underlying appeal pursuant to the court's standing order governing dismissals is affirmed. The parties' requests for attorney's fees are denied.

So ordered.

By the Court (Graham, Rubin & Milkey, JJ.),


Summaries of

Ham v. Finnigan

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Mar 13, 2012
11-P-716 (Mass. Mar. 13, 2012)
Case details for

Ham v. Finnigan

Case Details

Full title:KATHRYN R. HAM, trustee, v. FRANCES A. FINNIGAN.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Mar 13, 2012

Citations

11-P-716 (Mass. Mar. 13, 2012)