Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Citation
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Parent Document
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1988-03-16
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
- Manzaro v. McCann, 519 N.E.2d 1337 (1988)
Full Text
1,081 charsIt is reasonably clear that the drafters of the Uniform Summary Process Rules (1980) recognized that a notice of appeal in a summary process action need not be filed until after action is taken on a timely rule 59 (e) motion. The commentary to summary process rule 11 notes that “the running of time for appeal in summary process actions is not affected by the filing of a motion under Rule 60 [a motion for relief from judgment].” Commentary to Uniform Summary Process Rule 11, Mass. Ann. Laws at 249 (1980). Rule 60 motions are not mentioned in appellate rule 4 (a) (nor were they mentioned in rule 4[a] before its 1985 amendment), but rule 59 (e) motions (and others) are. If the drafters of the summary process rules had thought rule 59 (e) motions, like rule 60 motions, did not stay the time for appeal, presumably they would have said so. Thus, it appears they contemplated that tenants as well as landlords may delay the running of the time within which to claim an appeal by filing a rule 59 (e) motion. If this process is abused, an appropriate rule change can be made. 3