TBF FINANCIAL, LLC v. ANNA F. SPANGENBERG [Note 1]

FINNERTY, P.J. This is an appeal of a decision granting a motion under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, TBF Financial, LLC ("TBF"), against the defendant­appellant, Anna F. Spangenberg, d/b/a Main Street Monogram ("Spangenberg"), in a suit on a judgment from a Massachusetts District Court. The judgment was assigned to TBF.

As partial support for the motion for summary judgment, TBF incorporated Spangenberg's failure to respond to requests for admissions, which established certain facts. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 36(a) ("The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, . . . the party to whom the request is directed serves . . . [a written statement or objection]."). There was in the trial court no motion filed, much less granted, requesting the court to permit withdrawal or amendment of the admissions. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 36(b).

The facts established by those admissions were: a) judgment entered in the amount of $26,289.32 against Spangenberg; b) Spangenberg had made no payments toward the judgment, and the full amount remained unpaid; c) the rights of the judgment creditor in the judgment were assigned to TBF; and d) Spangenberg is liable to TBF for the money owed under the judgment. TBF supplemented its motion with affidavits and exhibits regarding the original judgment and the assignment to TBF.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991). Spangenberg did not submit any factual basis to deny TBF's claims. She argued that TBF had not established standing as the affidavits submitted were not sufficient to establish the assignment. She cannot merely stand on denial of the facts offered by TBF. See Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co. v. City of Springfield, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 108, 113 (2000). Furthermore, the requested admissions established sufficient facts.

Our review of the summary judgment is de novo. See Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671, 676 (2007).

Here, we agree with the decision of the trial court that no genuine issues of material fact were presented and that TBF was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There was no error, and the appeal is dismissed.

Page 114

We also determine that, pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 25, TBF shall be awarded double costs. Further, TBF's motion to strike the post-argument e-mail submission by counsel for Spangenberg is allowed. The filing does not comply with Dist./Mun. Cts. R.A.D.A. 16(l) as it does not relate to the citation of significant authorities, and it contains rebuttal argument after the case has been submitted. The filing was entirely inappropriate.