Franchi Mgmt. Co. v. Flaherty
Decision Date | 21 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 17–P–275,17–P–275 |
Citation | 105 N.E.3d 289,93 Mass.App.Ct. 418 |
Parties | FRANCHI MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., & others v. Paul F. FLAHERTY, Jr., trustee, & another; Pasquale Franchi, trustee, & others, third-party defendants. |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Christopher J. Marino (Kenneth J. Mickiewicz also present) for Paul F. Flaherty, Jr.
John J. Gushue for Franchi Management Company, Inc., & others.
Present: Rubin, Sacks, & Wendlandt, JJ.
In this case, we address the timeliness of a notice of appeal from a final judgment that was corrected twice: first, sua sponte to fix a clerical error in the calculation of prejudgment interest, and second, on a motion pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(a), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), to correct an additional error in that same calculation. Because neither the sua sponte correction of a clerical error nor the filing (as here) of a rule 60(a) motion beyond ten days from entry of the original judgment has the effect of restarting the time for appeal from that judgment under Mass.R.A.P. 4(a), as amended, 464 Mass. 1601 (2013), we dismiss defendant Paul F. Flaherty, Jr.'s appeal from the original judgment as untimely.6
Background. We briefly set forth the undisputed facts as agreed by the parties in their cross motions for summary judgment, leaving some procedural details for our discussion below. This dispute stems from the failure of the defendants, as trustees of the Patricia Franchi Flaherty 1999 Revocable Trust (trust), to pay plaintiff Michael Franchi (Michael) on a promissory note (note) pursuant to which Michael loaned $750,000 to his sister Patricia Franchi Flaherty (Patricia).7 Under the terms of the note, Michael and Patricia agreed that Michael's sole recourse for payment would be from Patricia's ownership and beneficial interests in certain assets, which she had previously transferred to the trust. Patricia died before the initial payment became due, and the trust did not make payments to Michael. The present action, which Michael and the other plaintiffs commenced in Superior Court,8 followed.
After a period of discovery, Michael moved for partial summary judgment on count 2 of the second amended complaint, asserting that the court should reach and apply trust assets to satisfy a $750,000 debt owed to him by Patricia.9 In their opposition, the defendants conceded liability under the note; they disputed only the amount due to Michael and whether Michael had complied with the notice provisions.10 The motion judge allowed Michael's motion and ordered the trust to pay the principal balance of the note together with interest,11 remarking that the defendants did not appear to dispute that Michael's claim was a direct contractual claim against the trust (as opposed to a claim against Patricia's estate). Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 820 (1974), Michael moved for entry of final judgment on his claim. The unopposed motion was allowed. The clerk of the Superior Court entered a final judgment on Michael's claim on December 22, 2014 (original judgment). Defendant Paul F. Flaherty, Jr., now appeals.
Discussion. Rule 4(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant in a civil case to file a notice of appeal "within thirty days of the date of the entry of the judgment appealed from." Mass.R.A.P. 4(a), first par. Here, the defendant purports to appeal from the original judgment, which entered as a final judgment on December 22, 2014.12 Specifically, on January 11, 2017—more than 750 days after the original judgment entered, and nearly two years after the thirty-day deadline for appeal from the original judgment had lapsed on January 21, 2015—the defendant filed a notice of appeal from the original judgment. Accordingly, unless an exception applies, the defendant's appeal is not timely.
Rule 4(a) provides that certain postjudgment motions will alter the time period for the filing of a notice of appeal, such that the thirty-day period will not commence until the entry of the order disposing of the postjudgment motion. Relevant to the present case, rule 4(a) was amended in 2013 to provide as follows:
"If a timely motion under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure is filed in the lower court by any party ... to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59 or for relief from judgment under Rule 60, however titled, if either motion is served within ten days after entry of judgment ... the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order ... granting or denying any ... such motion" (emphasis added).
Mass.R.A.P. 4(a), second par. A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of these postjudgment motions "shall have no effect"; "[a] new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the [postjudgment] motion." Ibid.
1. Sua sponte correction of clerical error. The defendant first maintains that the time for appeal was restarted when, on December 30, 2014, the court sua sponte corrected an arithmetic error in the original judgment regarding the amount of interest owed to Michael. The trial court has the power to correct clerical mistakes (such as arithmetic errors13 ) pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(a), which provides:
The trial court's exercise of this power does not restart the appellate clock. Rule 4(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, second par., provides only that certain postjudgment motions restart the time to appeal; nothing in rule 4(a) suggests that the time for appeal is restarted based on the sua sponte action by the trial court. To the contrary, it is well settled that where (as here) the trial court uses its inherent power to correct a clerical mistake such that the amended judgment does not alter the substantive rights affected by the original judgment, the time for appeal generally runs from the original judgment.14 See Jones v. Boykan, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 213, 217 n.7, 905 N.E.2d 132 (2009) (); Farkas v. Rumore, 101 F.3d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam), citing Federal Trade Commn. v. Minneapolis–Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U.S. 206, 73 S.Ct. 245, 97 L.Ed. 245 (1952) ().15 Accordingly, the sua sponte amendment of the original judgment did not alter the time to file the notice of appeal from the original judgment.
2. Rule 60(a) motion to correct a clerical error. The defendant next argues that the time for appeal was restarted when Michael served on the defendants a motion pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to correct an additional clerical error in the amended judgment. Specifically, on January 5, 2015—less than ten days after entry of the amended judgment, but more than ten days after entry of the original judgment—Michael served a rule 60(a) motion to correct another clerical error in the calculation of prejudgment interest in the amended judgment.16 The defendant maintains that this motion, pursuant to rule 60(a), is one of the enumerated postjudgment motions that restart the time to file the notice of appeal. In particular, the defendant contends that it was a motion "to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59 or for relief from judgment under Rule 60, however titled, if either motion is served within ten days after entry of judgment" (emphasis added). Mass.R.A.P. 4(a), second par. The defendant's argument overlooks that the rule 60(a) motion was not "served within ten days after entry" of the original judgment from which the defendant purports to appeal. For this reason alone, the argument fails.
Nevertheless, the defendant maintains that the time for appeal was extended because Michael's rule 60(a) motion was served within ten days of the entry of the amended judgment. The flaw in the defendant's contention is that the defendant does not appeal from the clerical correction reflected in the amended judgment. Instead, he purports to challenge the merits of the allowance of Michael's motion for summary judgment in the original judgment; the defendant's notice of appeal from that judgment was not filed until more than 750 days after the judgment entered. Michael's rule 60(a) motion (which was not served within ten days of the entry of the original judgment) does not "produce a Lazarus-like effect; it cannot resurrect [the defendant's] expired right to contest the merits of the underlying [original] judgment, nor bring the judgment itself before us for review." Rodriguez–Antuna v. Chase Manhattan Bank Corp., 871 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989). See 11 Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2871, at 586 (3d ed. 2012) ( ).
Because the trial court's sua sponte correction in the amended judgment does not alter the finality of the original judgment or restart the time for appeal, and because Michael's rule 60(a) motion was not served within ten days of the original judgment,17 the defendant's appeal from the original judgment is untimely.18
C...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Alden
... ... Bass River Golf Mgmt., 92 Mass. App. Ct. 595, 603, 93 N.E.3d 852 (2018) (quotation omitted). Because the Commonwealth ... ...
-
Fish v. Accidental Auto Body, Inc., 18-P-345
...is without effect. We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs' notice of appeal was timely. Contrast Franchi Mgt. Co. v. Flaherty, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 418, 422-424, 105 N.E.3d 289 (2018) (sua sponte correction of clerical error does not restart thirty-day time period to file notice of appeal......
-
Wright v. Demoura, 18-P-1184
...the plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of his complaint is untimely and is not properly before us. See Franchi Mgt. Co. v. Flaherty, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 418, 424 (2018). Nonetheless, the plaintiff did file a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his motion to reconsider. Accordingly, ......
-
Turner v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...rights under the original judgment, the request is for the correction of substantive, not clerical, error. See Franchi Mgt. Co. v. Flaherty, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 418, 422 (2018) (where court corrects clerical error, time for appeal runs from original judgment so as not to alter substantive rig......