Rmbs Reo Holdings, LLC v. Emmanuel O. Asia.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as 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 23.0 or 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).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-119

RMBS REO HOLDINGS, LLC

vs.

EMMANUEL O. ASIA.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

In this post foreclosure summary process case, a Housing

Court judge granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, RMBS REO

Holdings, LLC (RMBS), in June of 2021. Although the defendant

Emmanuel Asia timely appealed from the judgment, on November 18,

2021, the judge dismissed Asia's appeal, for two reasons: (1)

failure to timely pay the use and occupancy payments that were

ordered pending appeal, and (2) failure to timely prosecute the

appeal.

Asia now appeals from both the original judgment and from

the order dismissing his appeal. Because we perceive no error

in the judge's order dismissing the appeal, we affirm that

order.
Background. Asia received a home loan of $248,000 that he

used to purchase a property in Worcester in 2005, and he granted

a first mortgage in the same amount. Asia defaulted on the

mortgage around 2014, and in 2017, the then mortgagee initiated

foreclosure proceedings. The foreclosure took place in July

2017, and the then mortgagee took title to the property. Asia

was issued a notice to quit in January 2018. Asia did not quit

the premises.

RMBS initiated this summary process in July 2019, after

obtaining title by foreclosure deed in March 2019. The judge

granted RMBS's summary judgment motion on June 8, 2021. Asia

timely appealed and sought a waiver of the appeal bond. After

the Housing Court judge's appeal bond order was appealed to a

single justice of this court, on remand, the Housing Court judge

ordered (July 23 order): (1) that the appeal bond was waived,

but (2) that:

"Defendant must pay use and occupancy charges directly to
the Plaintiff as follows: $1,500.00 within 5 days of
receipt of [the single justice]'s order dated 07/23/2021
and the next payment of $1,500.00 is due on August 15, 2021
and on the fifteenth of every month thereafter during the
pendency of the defendant's appeal and his continued
possession of the property."

Although the defendant made some use and occupancy

payments, he did not pay use and occupancy in accordance with

the July 23 order, and was persistently behind on his payments,

including when he came before the court for a hearing on

2
November 18, 2021. The defendant also failed to comply with

rules 8 (b) and 9 (d) of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate

Procedure, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1611 and 1615 (2019) --

that is, he failed to properly order the transcripts of relevant

hearings or to certify that no such transcripts were required,

and he failed to notify opposing counsel of his intentions with

respect to ordering transcripts. As a result, although the

defendant had filed a notice of appeal in June 2021, as of

November of 2021 he had not taken the prescribed actions to move

the appeal forward and to ensure that the record was assembled.

The plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal in late October,

stating as grounds both the defendant's failure to make timely

use and occupancy payments and the failure to advance the

appeal. The judge held a hearing on November 18, 2021. At the

hearing, the defendant conceded that he was behind on use and

occupancy payments, noting that he instead had been paying his

children's college tuition. The defendant claimed that he had

requested hearing transcripts, but there was no record that he

had done so1 and, in any event, the defendant had not complied

with rule 8 or 9 by notifying the court and the

plaintiff/appellee of his intentions. Notably, the defendant

1 The judge noted that someone had handwritten the word
"transcripts," together with various dates, on the defendant's
notice of appeal, but that such an action was not sufficient to
comply with the rules.

3
took no steps to comply with the rules after receiving RMBS's

motion to dismiss the appeal. The judge entered an order

dismissing the appeal that same day.

Discussion. If an appellant fails to pay use and occupancy

as ordered by the court, or if he fails to comply with rules 8

and 9 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure by, for example,

failing to order the necessary transcripts, the trial court may

dismiss the appeal. See 21st Mtge. Corp. v. DeMustchine, 100

Mass. App. Ct. 792, 795, 801 (2022) (affirming dismissal of

appeal where defendant failed to make ordered use and occupancy

payments); Mass. R. A. P. 10 (c), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1618

(2019) (appeal may dismissed if appellant fails to comply with

rule 9 [d], and cannot show excusable neglect); Neuwirth v.

Neuwirth, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 248, 255 (2014), quoting Vyskocil v.

Vyskocil, 376 Mass. 137, 140 (1978) ("The case law has long

spoken of a delay in ordering a transcript as a serious misstep,

not a relatively innocuous one, the appropriate remedy or

penalty for which is presumptively dismissal of the appeal"

[quotations omitted]).2

2 The relevant portion of rule 8 (b) states that an
appellant

"shall order a transcript [or transmission and
transcription of the audio recording, if electronically
recorded,] of [proceedings relevant to the appeal] within
14 days of filing the notice of appeal . . ., unless the
appellant certifies to the clerk (i) that no lower court

4
Here, the judge found that the defendant had failed in both

the above ways. As to use and occupancy, the defendant made the

first ordered payment, but then failed to make timely payments

for the next four months. When the motion to dismiss was filed

in October, the defendant was two months behind.3

Furthermore, the judge determined that the defendant had

failed to comply with appellate rules 8 and 9. The defendant

did not order transcripts of relevant hearings, nor had he

properly filed a copy of any transcript orders with the clerk

and served opposing counsel. The defendant took no steps to

proceedings are relevant to the appeal or (ii) that the
transcript is on file with the court. . . . The appellant
shall at the same time file a copy of the transcript orders
or certifications with the clerk and serve a copy on all
other parties."

Mass. R. A. P. 8 (b) (1) (A). The relevant portion of rule
9 (d) states that

"each appellant in a civil case shall, within 14 days after
filing a notice of appeal, deliver to the clerk of the
lower court either (A) a transcript or those portions of
the transcript of the lower court proceedings which the
appellant deems necessary for determination of the appeal,
(B) a signed statement certifying that the appellant has
ordered such portions, or (C) a signed statement certifying
that the appellant has not ordered and does not intend to
order the transcript or any portion thereof."

Mass. R. A. P. 9 (d) (2).

3 To the extent the defendant argues that the judge erred by
failing to wait for his use and occupancy to be paid under G. L.
c. 261, §§ 27A to 27G, such payments are not appropriate under
the statute. Frechette v. D'Andrea, 494 Mass. 167, 169 (2024).

5
cure his failures prior to the November 18 hearing on the motion

to dismiss. The result of these failures was that the appeal

had not progressed at all for five months, leaving the defendant

in possession of premises owned by the plaintiff.

We accordingly discern no abuse of discretion in the order

dismissing the appeal. See Russell v. McOwen-Hanelt, 413 Mass.

106, 109 (1992), quoting McCarthy v. O'Connor, 398 Mass. 193,

196 (1986) ("The test to determine whether the judge was

warranted in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal is whether he

abused his discretion"). An abuse of discretion requires "a

clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the

decision, such that the decision falls outside the range of

reasonable alternatives" (quotation and citation omitted). L.L.

v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014). The judge's

decision here does not fall outside that range. Although we

recognize that the defendant was not represented by counsel on

the appeal, pro se litigants are held to the same standard as

all litigants in following the rules of procedure. Commonwealth

v. Walters, 472 Mass. 680, 705 (2015). Here the

defendant/appellant did not comply with the judge's order or

with the rules, and the result was that his appeal did not

6
progress -- to the defendant's evident benefit, as he remained

in the property he had been ordered to vacate.

Order dismissing appeal
affirmed.

By the Court (Sacks,
Englander & Grant, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: October 31, 2024.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

7