Kimball v. Matthews

By the Court (Vuono, Wolohojian & Shin, JJ.), Clerk

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

On appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial resulting in a plaintiff's verdict in this action on a promissory note, the defendants argue error in the denial of their motion to dismiss. However, the motion to dismiss is not before us; the defendants did not include it in their notice of appeal. See Mass. R.A.P. 3(c), as appearing in 430 Mass. 1602 (1999); G.E.B. v. S.R.W., 422 Mass. 158, 173 n.13 (1996); Robinson v. Boston, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 765, 771 (2008). Instead, the notice of appeal identifies only the judgment entered on November 20, 2015. Accordingly, there is nothing before us to review.

Although the defendants' arguments explicitly state that they pertain to the motion to dismiss, we have considered whether they could be understood to relate to the judgment of November 20, 2015 after trial (as noticed by the defendants). To the extent they can be so understood, the arguments are inadequately presented for our review. The defendants have provided no trial materials, including the trial transcript or exhibits, the instructions, their motion for directed verdict, or their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono, Wolohojian & Shin, JJ.),

/s/

Clerk Entered: January 17, 2017.