Stokosa v. Waltuch
| Decision Date | 19 January 1979 |
| Parties | John STOKOSA v. Eileen WALTUCH et al. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Herbert Murphy, Springfield, for plaintiff.
Before HALE, C. J., and ARMSTRONG and GREANEY, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiff has appealed from the denial of two motions filed after the entry of judgment in this action. 1. In the first motion the plaintiff sought an order directing the clerk "to include in the execution interest to the date that the execution is issued." That motion was properly denied for the reasons stated by the judge in his findings and order. 2. The one page of the plaintiff's brief devoted to the second motion (by which he sought an order under Mass.R.Civ.P. 69, 365 Mass. 836 (1974); see Geehan v. Trawler Arlington, Inc., 371 Mass. ---, --- - ---, A 359 N.E.2d 1276 (1977)) does not present an appellate argument within the meaning of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), 367 Mass. 921 (1975), and brings nothing before us for consideration. Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 13-14, 153 N.E.2d 636 (1958).
Orders affirmed.
a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1977) 190, 192-193.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tatar v. Schuker
...of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), [as amended,] 367 Mass. 921 (1975), and brings nothing before us for consideration." Stokosa v. Waltuch, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 975, 975, 384 N.E.2d 1250, S.C., 378 Mass. 617, 393 N.E.2d 350 (1979), citing Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 13-14, 153 N.E.2d 636 (1958). See not......
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy
...do not rise to the level of appellate argument. See Trani's Case, 4 Mass.App. 857, 858, 357 N.E.2d 339 (1976); Stokosa v. Waltuch, 6 Mass.App. 975, 384 N.E.2d 1250 (1979). 1. Reduction of Arrearages. A Probate Court has power to modify a support order in the context of either a complaint fo......