BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. BAZELAIS (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant Jean Bazelais (defendant) appeals from judgments for the plaintiff in two related postforeclosure summary process actions. The two cases were tried together, in the Housing Court. We affirm.

The plaintiff brought the summary process actions to recover possession of the properties formerly owned by the defendant. One case pertained to Unit 1 of 33 Everett Street, in Everett; the other pertained to Unit 2. Only the defendant appeared at trial.⁴ After trial, the judge issued findings of fact and rulings of law. The judge found that the plaintiff is the owner of the properties, and had served a notice to quit upon each defendant approximately two months prior. Additionally, the judge found that the defendant, who did not file an answer to the complaint, also “did not assert a credible defense to Plaintiff's claim for possession,” and “was evasive in his responses to examination.” Accordingly, the judge found the plaintiff entitled to possession “[b]ased on the credible evidence,” and ordered that judgment for possession enter for the plaintiff.⁵

The arguments in the defendant's brief -- which extensively discuss Federal subject matter jurisdiction, contract doctrine, and scripture, among other things -- do not rise to the level of appellate argument required by Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019).⁶ Moreover, as to those assertions in the brief that we can discern, our review of the record shows that they lack merit. See Zora v. State Ethics Comm'n, 415 Mass. 640, 642 n.3 (1993). For example, the defendant appears to assert that the foreclosing mortgagee did not possess the note or act at the behest of the note holder. The judge found, however, that the plaintiff is the postforeclosure owner of the subject properties, and the defendant does not cite to any record evidence that might show the judge's finding to be clear error. Discerning no other error, we affirm the judgments.

Judgments affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

4.   The other two named defendants did not appear; default judgment entered against them, and they have not appealed.

5.   Although the cases were not consolidated in the Housing Court, they were tried together, and the defendant noticed an appeal from both judgments.

6.   The defendant appeared pro se at trial, and also in this court.