Blaize v. Singh, 20-P-1414

CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts
Docket Number20-P-1414
Decision Date17 June 2022



No. 20-P-1414

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

June 17, 2022

Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as 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 23.0 or 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).


The plaintiff, a lawyer who represented the defendant in a divorce proceeding, brought this action to recover payment for legal services rendered to the defendant. A Superior Court judge defaulted the defendant for failure to comply with discovery obligations and then held an assessment of damages hearing. On September 12, 2018, a judgment entered against the defendant in the total amount of $103, 110.73. The defendant did not appeal. Nearly nine months later, the plaintiff's request for issuance of an execution on the judgment entered on the docket. The execution that issued, however, contained a clerical error that caused the execution total to reflect the erroneous amount of $980, 499.11. The unserved execution was returned to the court, and a corrected execution of $114, 339.39 (judgment total of $103, 110.73 plus postjudgment interest of


$11, 228.66) issued on August 9, 2019. The defendant thereafter sought to challenge the issuance of the corrected execution by filing various motions, all of which were denied and none of which the defendant appealed.[1]

On or about June 26, 2020, the plaintiff moved the court to produce the corrected execution. On June 30, 2020, the court determined that the corrected execution that issued on August 9, 2019, was missing or lost and therefore ordered the clerk's office to reissue the corrected execution. The defendant appeals from the June 30, 2020, order.

On appeal, however, the defendant's arguments are all addressed to challenging either the September 12, 2018, money judgment, or the August 29, 2019, order denying her motion for relief...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT