History
  • No items yet
midpage
972 N.E.2d 53
Mass. App. Ct.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Until 2008, warrants requests under Mass.R.Civ.P. 64A allowed challenges to evidence in jury-waived trials in District/Boston Municipal Courts.
  • Warrants were repealed with Mass.R.Civ.P. 64A and amended Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(c); latest practice uses proposed findings of fact and rulings of law.
  • In this bench trial over attorney’s fees for Celus Fasteners, Lahnston claimed personal liability; Davis, Malm sought fees for work on Celus asset sale.
  • Parties submitted warrants-like requests; judge issued terse, mixed responses, largely adopting the plaintiff’s submissions.
  • Appellate Division affirmed on the merits; Lahnston renewed sufficiency challenge arguing the trial judge erred in not making independent findings.
  • Court addresses preservation and the continued validity of warrants requests, ultimately holding warrants are obsolete and must use Rule 52(c) evidentiary findings.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Preservation of sufficiency issue on review Lahnston preserved via warrants requests Davis, Malm argues no proper preservation Lahnston failed to preserve; review unavailable
Validity of warrants requests after repeal Warrants still permitted under old practice Warrants obsolete post-repeal Warrants requests no longer valid; use Rule 52(c) findings
Judge's independence in rulings Requests were properly treated as court rulings Judge must provide independent findings Judge lacked independent findings; error but not fatal to result

Key Cases Cited

  • Bresnick v. Heath, 292 Mass. 293 (Mass. 1935) (illustrates improper denial of warrant-like request when issues are disputed facts)
  • Stella v. Curtis, 348 Mass. 458 (Mass. 1965) (distinguishes requests for rulings of law from findings of fact)
  • DiGesse v. Columbia Pontiac Co., 369 Mass. 99 (Mass. 1975) (discusses handling of warrants in trial practice)
  • Richards v. Gilbert, 336 Mass. 617 (Mass. 1958) (example of need for independent findings in rulings on requests)
  • Caporale v. Big Y Foods, Inc., 2001 Mass. App. Div. 77 (Mass. App. Div. 2001) (illustrates appellate review of warrants-era practice)
  • Norfolk County Trust Co. v. Green, 304 Mass. 406 (Mass. 1939) (principle on personal liability from signature language)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Davis, Malm & D'Agostine v. Lahnston
Court Name: Massachusetts Appeals Court
Date Published: Jul 25, 2012
Citations: 972 N.E.2d 53; 2012 WL 3002610; 82 Mass. App. Ct. 254; 2012 Mass. App. LEXIS 229; No. 11-P-35
Docket Number: No. 11-P-35
Court Abbreviation: Mass. App. Ct.
Log In
    Davis, Malm & D'Agostine v. Lahnston, 972 N.E.2d 53