In the Matter of Edward J. Collins (2024)

Citation: In the Matter of Edward J. Collins (2024)
Parent Document: In the Matter of Edward J. Collins (2024)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281485/in-the-matter-of-edward-j-collins/ ↗

Full Text

2,055 chars

Regarding the substance of his representation, the respondent contends that no court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on his arguments regarding the spousal elective share statute and the Homestead Act.  Put another way, as the respondent argued to the hearing committee, he believes that all judgments assuming or purporting to decide those arguments contrary to his position are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for lack of due process.  But as described supra, both arguments were substantively addressed by the Appellate Division, and what is more, the Appellate Division addressed the respondent's argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the client's rights in a summary process proceeding.  Moreover, the judge's decision in the Middlesex County Probate and Family Court case addressed at length the respondent's arguments regarding his client's purported rights under the spousal elective share statute.  Both courts decided those issues against the respondent.  The respondent failed to prosecute the consolidated appeals arising from these cases.  In his memorandum, the respondent argues that his failure to do so was a "deliberate strategy to reserve the right to appeal" while focusing limited resources elsewhere.  But the respondent's decision to forgo the consolidated appeals in the Appeals Court meant that the appealed decisions became final.  See Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Med., 444 Mass. 837, 843-844 (2005); Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526, 533-534 (2002).  Consequently, that same decision foreclosed his attempt to relitigate these arguments in the United States Bankruptcy Court.  See Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 907 F.3d 61, 64-65 (1st Cir. 2018).  In sum, the respondent's opinion that the relevant State court judgments were void did not absolve him of his responsibilities to pursue such arguments competently and diligently in the appropriate fora.  See Matter of Cohen, 435 Mass. 7, 14-17 (2001) (rejecting similar arguments and applying issue preclusion).

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text