WILSON v. BOARD OF APPEAL ON MOTOR VEHICLE AND LIABILITY POLICIES AND BONDS (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The pro se plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment affirming the decision of the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (board), which upheld Arbella Mutual Insurance Company's (Arbella) decision to cancel the plaintiff's motor vehicle liability policy as “proper and reasonable.” We affirm.³

Discussion. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the Superior Court's affirmance of the board's decision was erroneous and should be reversed. However, in doing so, the plaintiff does not specifically state what he claims was incorrect or unlawful about the Superior Court decision or the board's decision that it affirmed. Nor does the plaintiff cite to a single legal authority in his one-page appellate brief to support his arguments.⁴

An appellant's brief must contain “the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). The rule “is more than a ‘mere technicality. It is founded on the sound principle that the right of a party to have this court consider a point entails a duty; that duty is to assist the court with argument and appropriate citation of authority.’ ” Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 85-86 (1995), quoting Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 14 (1958). While “some leniency is appropriate in determining whether pro se litigants have complied with rules of procedure, the rules nevertheless bind pro se litigants as all other litigants.” Brown v. Chicopee Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 1710, IAFF, 408 Mass. 1003, 1004 n.4 (1990). Accordingly, here, where the plaintiff failed to articulate in his brief the precise issues on appeal, and further failed to support his claims with legal authorities, his claims do not rise to the level of adequate appellate argument and are deemed waived. See rule 16 (a) (9) (A). As a result, we decline to reach them.

Corrected judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

3.   After the plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and the appeal was entered in this court, a corrected judgment issued clarifying the language of the judgment.

4.   The plaintiff's brief also fails to include a statement of issues, a statement of case, and a statement of facts, as required by Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). The plaintiff filed the present brief after his motion to file a nonconforming brief was denied without prejudice to renewal with a brief that, at a minimum, was legible and contained a statement of facts and appellate argument, accompanied by a record appendix with necessary documentation from the record below. While, upon renewal, the present nonconforming brief was accepted for filing, a single justice of this court specifically stated that the order accepting the plaintiff's brief “should not be construed as a waiver of the requirement to provide appropriate appellate argument and a sufficient record appendix to enable appellate review.”