U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST v. MICHELE FAITH, JACQUELINE FAITH, PETER FAITH and MICHAEL FAITH v. SILVA REALTY GROUP, INC., Third-Party Defendants

On January 27, 2020, while this Court had under advisement defendants' original Motion to Stay Execution of Use and Occupancy Pending Appeal and Request for Waiver of Bond (the "Original Motion"), the defendants filed a second Motion for Waiver of Bond Requirement (the "2nd Motion") and new affidavits of indigency. [Note 1] In response to the defendants 2nd Motion, the plaintiff moves to strike such 2nd Motion on the grounds that it is duplicative, untimely and improper. This Court agrees, and ALLOWS plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' 2nd Motion, together with the affidavits of indigency filed therewith, without hearing.

The Court finds no reasonable basis in law or fact to entertain defendants' duplicative and untimely 2nd Motion. The standards for waiver of the appeal bond are set forth in this Court's separate ruling of the same date on defendant's Original Motion and need not be repeated here. In brief, G.L. c. 239, §§5(a) and 5(e) requires that a motion to waive bond "shall, together with a notice of appeal and any supporting affidavits" be filed within 10 days after the entry of judgment. G.L. c. 239, §5(e).

Here, summary judgment entered for plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust ("Plaintiff"), on November 22, 2019. There is no question that defendants 2nd Motion is untimely, having been filed 67 days after the entry of judgment. It was filed without leave of Court, at a time while defendants' Original Motion was still under advisement, is duplicative, and evidently was done in an attempt to cure defendants' failure to timely file their supporting affidavits of indigency with their Original Motion.

While the 10-day period prescribed by G.L. c. 239, §5 for filing a motion to waive bond is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to consideration of such motion, there is no need for defendants to file a duplicative motion when their Original Motion was timely filed. U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. v. Johnson, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 291 , 296 (2019). Moreover, the Court seriously questions whether it is reasonable in the context of this case to entertain new affidavits of indigency filed with defendants' 2nd Motion. The 2nd Motion, and affidavits of indigency accompanying it, is untimely, duplicative and without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Second and Untimely Motion to Waive Appeal Bond and Untimely Supporting Affidavits of Indigency is ALLOWED.

Rule 1 of the Uniform Summary Process Rules states that such rules are to be "construed and applied to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every summary process action." This history of this case, now with over 200 docket entries spanning a period of years, has been anything but "speedy, and inexpensive." The parties are cautioned that the filing of duplicative and/or frivolous motions places a significant strain on the judicial and clerical resources of this Court and adversely impacts the Court's ability to provide access to justice for all litigants. Future duplicative and/or frivolous filings by any party to this action, and/or in the related civil action between the same parties bearing Docket No. 1983CV00347NB, may be stricken without a hearing, and further may result in the imposition of sanctions and/or the issuance of an order requiring that in the interest of preserving judicial resources such party must first obtain permission of the Court before it will accept such party's future filings.

SO ORDERED.