Opinion
11-P-416
03-28-2012
SUSAN MANI v. UNITED BANK & others.
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
Due to the nonpayment of her mortgage, the property of the plaintiff, Susan Mani, was foreclosed upon in 2006. Since that date, the plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits challenging the propriety of the action. At all times, the legality of the foreclosure proceeding was upheld.
We note that United Bank v. Mani, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 75 (2011), dealt with the surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale.
Two years after this court upheld the legality of the sale, see Mani v. United Bank, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (2007); see also United Bank v. Mani, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 75, 76 n.4 (2011)
('The defendants' Land Court challenge to the foreclosure proceedings was ultimately unsuccessful'), Mani sued
Suit was filed on June 25, 2009.
Abdul Sattar and Farzana S. Chaudhry (defendants), who had purchased the home from United Bank in an arm's-length sale eight months after the foreclosure sale. The plaintiff essentially raised the same earlier issues on which she had not prevailed.
A judge in the Superior Court granted, appropriately in our view, summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that res judicata precluded the suit.
For the reasons cited by the judge in her decision, and for substantially those in the brief of the defendants, we affirm the judgment. We also allow the defendants' motion for appellate attorney's fees and costs. The defendants may submit, within fourteen days of the date of the rescript of this decision, a petition for fees and costs, together with supporting documentation. The plaintiff shall have fourteen days thereafter to respond. See Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004).
Although the record indicates the plaintiff also has appealed from an order denying a motion for reconsideration, she does not challenge that order in her brief. As a result, that portion of her appeal is waived. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).
The request for double costs is denied.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Berry & Vuono, JJ.),