KENNETH J. MEDEIROS & Others v. CHRISTINE CESTODIO.
24-P-0966
Mass. App. Ct.May 29, 2025Background
- The Medeiros family (Kenneth, Lisa, and Brittany) sued Christine Cestodio in 2018, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to repay loans for various living expenses.
- After a four-day bench trial, the judge permitted the plaintiffs to add claims of promissory estoppel and conversion.
- The court found for the plaintiffs on all core claims—breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and conversion—and dismissed all of Cestodio’s counterclaims.
- Judgments totaling over $218,000 in damages and interest were entered for the plaintiffs, and Cestodio’s appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- Cestodio later filed two post-judgment motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b); both were denied as untimely and unsupported, and she appealed the second denial.
- The appellate panel affirmed denial of the motion, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) | Judgment should stand; motion untimely and unsupported | Entitled to relief due to new evidence and fraud/misconduct | Denied as untimely and meritless |
| Enforceability of contract | Contract with Cestodio was enforceable | No enforceable contract; judge erred in finding one | Contract enforceable |
| Fairness of trial and representation | Judgment properly entered after fair proceedings | Denied fair trial, attorney conflicts, judge ignored disabilities | Arguments unsupported and waived |
| Use of Rule 60(b) as appeal substitute | Judgment final; regular appeals process must be used | Seeks post-judgment relief for prior judicial errors | Rule 60(b) can’t substitute appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258 (limitations on precedential value of summary decisions)
- Owens v. Mukendi, 448 Mass. 66 (Rule 60 balances finality and justice; time limits apply)
- Sahin v. Sahin, 435 Mass. 396 (framework and policy underlying Rule 60 relief)
- Department of Revenue v. W.Z., 412 Mass. 718 (one-year limit for Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) motions)
- Chavoor v. Lewis, 383 Mass. 801 (strict one-year time limit for Rule 60 motions; not extendable)
- Scheuer v. Mahoney, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 704 (failure to prosecute appeal waives right to challenge judgment)
- Muir v. Hall, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 38 (Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for appeal)