From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ATEK, INC. v. HENRY

Massachusetts Appellate Division, Southern District
Jan 29, 1999
1999 Mass. App. Div. 26 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

January 29, 1999.

Present: Aguiar, P.J., Crimmins Welsh, JJ.

Practice, Civil, Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A., Rule 8C; Motion to remove default and file answer late, Denial of.

Opinion dismissing defendant's appeal. Motion to vacate default and file answer late heard in the Wrentham Division by St. Cyr, J.

William P. Lenehan for the plaintiff.

Paul R. Chomko for the defendant.



This is an appeal by the defendant, Ralph Henry, Jr., from the denial of his motion to remove default and file a late answer.

This action was brought to collect monies allegedly owed to the plaintiff. Defendant failed to file a timely answer as required by Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 12 (a) and default entered against the defendant on July 9, 1996. Defendant filed a motion to vacate the default and file a late answer which was denied after a hearing. Default judgment entered against the defendant on September 23, 1996. Defendant appeals the denial of the motion pursuant to Rule 8C, Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A.

We determine there was no error.

The decision on a motion to remove default is in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion. Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v. Servfast of Brockton, Inc., 393 Mass. 287, 289 (1984). Defendant's only argument for removing the default is that the defendant failed to hire an attorney before the expiration of the period allowed for filing an answer. The failure to hire an attorney promptly, without more, does not present a sufficient excuse to remove a default. Even if the defendant offered an excuse for his failure to hire an attorney, the defendant always has the option of proceeding pro se. The denial of defendant's motion does not amount to an abuse of discretion.

Appeal dismissed.

So ordered.


Summaries of

ATEK, INC. v. HENRY

Massachusetts Appellate Division, Southern District
Jan 29, 1999
1999 Mass. App. Div. 26 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

ATEK, INC. v. HENRY

Case Details

Full title:ATEK, Inc. vs. Ralph Henry, Jr

Court:Massachusetts Appellate Division, Southern District

Date published: Jan 29, 1999

Citations

1999 Mass. App. Div. 26 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Randall v. Rapoza

Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 60 (b) (1), permits a judge to relieve a party from the effect of an otherwise final…

Northborough Engineering, Inc. v. Basile

On appeal, Northborough argues that the Motion was pursuant to Rule 60 (b) (6) which allows relief from…