Court Case Record SPIRIDON SPYROPOULOS vs. ELAINE THEODORU & another 2013-J-0213 UID(996b)


Court Case Number: 2013-J-0213

Case Number2013-J-0213
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyHousing Ct, Worcester Cty
CourtHousing Ct, Worcester Cty
Court Address
Field Date06/03/2013
Close Date06/20/2013


Lawrence R. Kulig, Esquire Glen F. Matheson, EsquireSpiridon SpyropoulosPlaintiff/Respondent
Martin I. Flax, EsquireElaine TheodoruDefendant/Petitioner
Martin I. Flax, EsquireNicholas StefosDefendant/Petitioner
Paul Michienzie, Esquire Franziskus Lepionka, EsquireBayview Loan Servicing, LLCThird-party defendant
Daniel E. Burgoyne, EsquireEquity One IncThird-party defendant
Franziskus Lepionka, EsquireMortgage Electronic RegistrationThird-party defendant
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
06/03/2013 #1 Appeal entered pursuant to M.G.L.c. 239, § 5 with attachments.^
06/03/2013 #2 RE#1: The trial court has re-assembled and transmitted the record in this matter, which has been docketed in 13-J-213. Accordingly, the matter shall proceed in 13-J-213 and 13-J-202 is closed. *Notice/attest/Horan, J.
06/05/2013 #3 Telephone notice to counsel for hearing before Rubin, J. on 6/10/13 @ 1:00 P.M., in Courtroom 4.
06/07/2013 #4 Notice of appearance of Franziskus Lepionka for Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. ^
06/07/2013 #5 Notice of appearance of Franziskus Lepionka for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ^
06/07/2013 #6 Notice of appearance of Glen F. Matheson for Spiridon Spyropoulos. ^
06/10/2013 #7 Hearing held.
06/10/2013 #8 Appearance of Attorney Franziskus Lepionka for Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. ^
06/10/2013 Appearance of Attorney Martin I. Flax limited appearance for Elaine Theodoru & Nicholas Stefos. ^
06/10/2013 Appearance of Attorney Glen F. Matheson for Spiridon Spyropoulos. ^
06/20/2013 ORDER: This is the defendants' appeal, entered pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5, from the order dated April 24, 2013, of the motion judge, who was not the judge who issued the judgment, denying the defendants' motion to waive the appeal bond, and setting the bond at $7,400. The defendants do not contest that aspect of the bond order requiring them to pay monthly use and occupancy rent pending appeal beginning on May 1, 2013. General Laws c. 239, § 6, says that a bond may include "a reasonable amount as rent of the land from the day when the mortgage was foreclosed until possession of the land is obtained." Here, however, the judgment did not provide for any damages reflecting any such rent for the period prior to judgment. In addition, at a hearing before me, the parties represented that the bond has now been paid by an escrow agent out of funds apparently held in escrow to cover use and occupancy for some period prior to judgment, though I say apparently because there is no escrow agreement, or indeed, any other information about this escrow account in the record before me. In these circumstances, I cannot determine what purpose, if any, is served by the $ 7,400 bond. I therefore will vacate that aspect of the order requiring payment of the $7,400, but stay my order of vacatur pending further order of the trial court, and will remand the matter to the judge who originally issued the judgment for reconsideration of the motion to waive the bond to the extent it relates to the period prior to April 24, 2013.(2) He shall have authority to reinstate or to waive the bond, and to address any subsidiary matters as appropriate. In order to facilitate appellate review, should it be sought, his order disposing of the motion shall include an explanation of his reasoning for his action. So ordered. (Rubin, J.) *Notice/Attest/Horan, J. Footnote: (1) Nicholas Stefos. (2) In all other respects the order is affirmed.