seal

Court Case Record NORTH VILLAGE AT WEBSTER vs. NICOLE BRAMAN 2011-P-0391 UID(1e3d)


NORTH VILLAGE AT WEBSTER vs. NICOLE BRAMAN Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-P-0391


 
Case Number2011-P-0391
Case TitleNORTH VILLAGE AT WEBSTER vs. NICOLE BRAMAN
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyHousing Ct, Worcester Cty
CourtHousing Ct, Worcester Cty
Court Address
Phone
Field Date07/06/2010
Close Date04/09/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
Edmond A. Neal, III, EsquireNorth Village at WebsterPlaintiff/Appellant
Sherrill P. Cline, EsquireNicole BramanDefendant/Appellee
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
03/08/2011 #1 Entered.
03/08/2011 #2 Notice of entry sent.
04/04/2011 #3 MOTION to extend brief & appendix due date, filed by North Village at Webster.
04/04/2011 #4 RE#2: Allowed to 05/19/2011. Notice to counsel.
05/16/2011 #5 SERVICE of brief & appendix, & 2 vols, 2 sets of transcripts for Plaintiff/Appellant North Village at Webster.
06/07/2011 #6 MOTION to extend brief due date of Nicole Braman.
06/08/2011 #7 RE#1: Extension to 07/11/2011 granted for filing of brief of Nicole Braman, Defendant/Appellee. Notice to counsel.
07/08/2011 #8 Motion to file non-conforming brief and to include a supplemental appendix, filed by Nicole Braman.
07/13/2011 #9 RE#5: Allowed for filing this date of appellee's non-conforming brief. (Carhart, J.) *Notice.
07/07/2011 #10 SERVICE of brief for Defendant/Appellee Nicole Braman.
01/30/2012 Under consideration by Panel. (Grasso, J., Fecteau, J., Sullivan, J.).
03/12/2012 Decision: Rule 1:28 (Grasso, Fecteau, Sullivan, JJ.). Judgment affirmed. *Notice.
03/21/2012 Motion for assessment of attorney's fees and costs, filed by Nicole Braman. @
03/28/2012 OPPOSITION to paper #8, filed by North Village at Webster. @
04/09/2012 RESCRIPT to Trial Court.
05/24/2012 ORDER ON ATTORNEY'S FEE REQUEST: The defendant-appellee Nicole Braman (Braman) has moved pursuant to G. L.c. 211A, ยง 15 for appellate attorneys' fees and double costs, arguing that the appeal of plaintiff-appellant North Village At Webster (Webster) was"frivolous, immaterial or intended for delay." See also Mass.R.A.P. 25, as amended, 378Mass. 925 (1979). Webster has opposed Braman's motion, asserting that its appeal was taken reasonably and was neither frivolous nor intended for delay. Wemay award appellate attorneys' fees when we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See Masterpiece Kitchen& Bath, Inc. v. Gordon, 425 Mass. 325, 329 (1997); Allenv. Batchelder, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 453, 457-458 (1984). Unpersuasive arguments do not necessarilyr ender an appeal frivolous, and the determination of whether an appeal is frivolous is left to our sound discretion. See Love v. Pratt, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 454, 459 (2005). "We exercise the power to award damages sparingly and hesitate 'to deem an appeal frivolous and grant sanctions except in egregious cases.'" Ibid. Although Webster was unsuccessful in its appeal, we do not view its appeal, or the issues that it raised, as frivolous or an egregious use of the appellate process. See Pierce v. Clark,66 Mass. App. Ct. 912 (2006). Accordingly, Braman's motion for appellate attorney's fees and double costs for a frivolous appeal is denied. See Fronk v. Fowler, 456 Mass. 317, 326-327, 336 (2010). So ordered. (Grasso, Fecteau & Sullivan, JJ.) *Notice/Attest.