NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

22-P-1185 Appeals Court

FORT POINT INVESTMENTS, LLC vs. HOPE KIRUNGE-SMITH & another.1

No. 22-P-1185.

Middlesex. October 13, 2023. – March 4, 2024.

Present: Wolohojian, Desmond, & Sacks, JJ.

Summary Process, Appeal. Landlord and Tenant, Eviction.

Judgment, Relief from judgment, Enforcement. Practice, 

Civil, Summary process, Relief from judgment, Execution.

Summary Process. Complaint filed in the Eastern Division 

of the Housing Court Department on March 29, 2021.

A motion to vacate a default judgment was heard by Michael 

E. Malamut, J., and the reissuance of an execution for 

possession was ordered by him.

Alexander H. Loomis for the defendants.

Eleftherios S. Papadopoulos for the plaintiff.

Mark Martinez, for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute,

amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Joel Feldman, for Heisler & Feldman, P.C., amicus curiae, 

submitted a brief.

1 Avery Goldman. 
2

SACKS, J. The defendants in this procedurally tangled 

summary process case appeal from a Housing Court judge's order 

(1) denying their motion for relief from the default judgment 

entered against them and (2) declining to recall a second

execution for possession that was issued after the landlord 

returned the first execution unused. We affirm the portion of 

the order denying the motion for relief from judgment. We 

conclude, however, that reissuance of the execution was barred 

by G. L. c. 235, § 23, second par., which provides generally 

that an execution for possession in a summary process action 

shall not be issued later than three months after judgment. The 

execution must therefore be recalled.2

Background. The defendants (tenants) rented an apartment 

in Cambridge from the plaintiff (landlord). In March 2021, the 

landlord, asserting non-payment of rent, commenced this summary 

process action. The tenants, who were self-represented, did not 

appear on either the original or the rescheduled trial date. On

August 30, 2021, a default judgment entered, and on September 

22, 2021, at the landlord's request, an execution for possession 

and damages issued.

Nearly six months later, on March 15, 2022, the landlord 

moved for reissuance of the execution. In its motion, the 

2 We acknowledge the amicus letter-briefs submitted by Joel

Feldman, Esq., and by the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. 
3

landlord asserted that (1) it had refrained from levying on the 

execution while it attempted, unsuccessfully, to "work with the 

[tenants] to resolve their balance"; (2) in November 2021, when 

it attempted to schedule a levy, it discovered that the original

execution issued by the clerk was defective because it was 

missing the premises' address; and (3) the landlord had then 

mailed the execution to its counsel to return to the court, but 

the execution was lost in the mail for some time and had 

expired.3 The expired execution was attached to the motion.

On May 17, 2022, a judge issued an order allowing the 

motion to reissue the execution. Treating the tenants' ensuing 

motion to vacate that order as a motion for reconsideration, he 

denied it. On June 16, 2022, the second execution issued. The 

tenants filed a notice of appeal and moved for a stay of levy on 

the second execution pending appeal.

On June 24, 2022, the tenants moved to vacate the default 

judgment. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974). 

They asserted that their default resulted from excusable neglect

attributable to one tenant's serious medical issues, and that 

the landlord's acceptance of funds from the Commonwealth's

3 By statute, "[n]o sheriff, constable, officer, or other 

person shall serve or levy upon any such execution for 

possession later than three months following the date of the 

issuance of the execution." G. L. c. 235, § 23, second par. 

Here, the face of the execution stated its expiration date, 

December 21, 2021. 
4

residential assistance for families in transition program (RAFT 

funds) barred the landlord from evicting them.

On June 30, 2022, at a hearing on the tenants' motions, the 

parties orally agreed that the tenants could remain in the 

apartment for two more months, provided that they timely made 

use and occupancy payments for July and August. There was also 

discussion of the tenants waiving their right to appeal. The 

judge stated that he would reduce the agreement to writing and 

issue it as an order. The resulting order stated, among other 

things, that the tenants waived all further appeals.

The tenants, denying that they had agreed to vacate the 

apartment or to waive their right to further appeals, filed a 

motion for clarification and renewed their motion for a stay 

pending appeal. In the same motion, they argued that the second 

execution should be recalled, because its issuance was barred by 

the prohibition in G. L. c. 235, § 23, second par., against 

issuing an execution for possession more than three months after 

judgment.

The judge denied the tenants' rule 60 (b) motion and their 

separate motion seeking clarification, a stay pending appeal, 

and recall of the second execution. The tenants then filed 

another notice of appeal, and a single justice of this court 

allowed the tenants' motion to stay levy on the second execution 

pending appeal.
5

Discussion. 1. The rule 60 (b) motion. The tenants argue 

that the judge misapplied the standard for determining excusable 

neglect and thus abused his discretion in denying their rule 

60 (b) motion for relief from judgment. To address this 

argument, we must first recount in more detail what the record 

shows of the circumstances leading to the default judgment and 

the tenants' motion to vacate it.4

a. The default judgment and rule 60 (b) motion. The 

action was commenced in March of 2021. The tenants did not

timely file an answer. On the date originally set for trial, 

July 23, 2021, the tenants did not appear and were defaulted. 

Later that day, one of the tenants appeared in court and told 

the judge she had not received notice of the trial date and had 

not known when the answer was due.5 Crediting these assertions, 

the judge issued an order in open court allowing the tenants an 

additional week to file an answer and discovery requests and 

rescheduling the trial for August 27, 2021.

4 Although the judge concluded that the tenants, at the June 

30, 2022 hearing, waived their right to appeal, he did so before 

a transcript of that hearing was available. That transcript now 

having been produced, we have reviewed it carefully and conclude 

that the tenants did not waive their right to appeal any of the 

orders now before us. To the extent the judge found as fact to 

the contrary, the finding was clearly erroneous.

5 It appears she was in court for a case management 

conference in a prior summary process action, before the same 

judge, involving the same parties. The details of that action 

are not relevant here.
6

The tenants did not, however, file any answer or discovery

requests, and on the rescheduled trial date, they did not appear 

and were again defaulted. The landlord submitted an amended 

account of its damages, and on August 30, 2021, the default 

judgment entered, awarding the landlord possession as well as 

damages and costs. On September 22, 2021, at the landlord's 

request, an execution issued for possession and the amount due.

There was no further docket activity until March 16, 2022, 

when the landlord returned the execution as defective and, 

because it had expired, moved for reissuance of the execution. 

At an April 7, 2022 hearing on the motion, the tenants told the 

judge that they were seeking alternative affordable housing

elsewhere and asked that the reissuance of the execution be 

delayed on equitable grounds. The judge continued the hearing 

to April 21, to allow the tenants time to obtain documents to 

support their argument. The judge also told the tenants that if 

they filed a rule 60 (b) motion before the April 21 hearing, he 

would hear the motion on that date.

The hearing was subsequently postponed until May 17, 2022, 

by which time the tenants had neither filed a rule 60 (b) motion

nor furnished evidence satisfactory to the judge that they were 

sufficiently close to obtaining alternative housing to warrant 

an equitable stay. The judge therefore allowed the motion to 

reissue the execution; the tenants moved for reconsideration;
7

the judge denied that motion in a written decision; and, on June 

16, 2022, the second execution issued.

Only thereafter, on June 24, 2022, did the tenants file 

their rule 60 (b) motion. That motion, unsupported by any 

affidavits, asserted the following. In late July 2021, due to 

one tenant's serious medical issues, they had entrusted to a 

third party the mailing of their late answer and a motion to 

reschedule the trial. They did not know why neither the court 

nor the landlord received those papers. They called the Housing 

Court clerk several times and were told that the trial had not 

been rescheduled but that they would "get a notice." They 

received no such notice, however, and the medical issues made it 

impossible for either of them to attend court on the August 27

trial date. They received no notice of the entry of the default 

judgment. Their motion also indicated, however, that they knew 

by mid-February of 2022, if not earlier, that the original 

execution had been issued.

b. Excusable neglect standard. Rule 60 (b) (1) authorizes 

relief from judgment in cases of excusable neglect, provided the 

motion is made "within a reasonable time, and . . . not more 

than one year after the judgment . . . was entered." Mass. R. 

Civ. P. 60 (b). In Berube v. McKesson Wine & Spirits Co., 7 

Mass. App. Ct. 426 (1979), we stated that motions seeking such 
8

relief should "be measured against a consideration, among other 

relevant circumstances, of at least the following factors:

"(1) whether the offending party has acted promptly after 

entry of judgment to assert his claim for relief therefrom; 

(2) whether there is a showing either by way of affidavit, 

or otherwise apparent on the record, that the claim sought 

to be revived has merit; (3) whether the neglectful conduct 

occurs before trial, as opposed to during, or after the 

trial; (4) whether the neglect was the product of a 

consciously chosen course of conduct on the part of 

counsel; (5) whether prejudice has resulted to the other 

party; and (6) whether the error is chargeable to the 

party's legal representative, rather than to the party 

himself; for the courts have been reluctant to attribute to 

the parties the errors of their legal representatives" 

(quotation and citation omitted).

Id. at 430-431. See Care One Mgt., LLC v. Brown, 98 Mass. App. 

Ct. 589, 594 (2020) (same). Rule 60 (b) motions "are commended 

to the judge's discretion, and a judge's decision will not be 

overturned, except upon a showing of a clear abuse of 

discretion" (quotations and citation omitted).6 Care One Mgt., 

LLC, supra.

i. Timeliness. The judge's order denying the rule 60 (b) 

motion stated that it was filed two months after the April 21, 

2022 date by which he invited them to file it -- a date that he 

set so the motion could be heard before he reached the 

landlord's request to issue a second execution. Although the 

6 Nine months after this appeal was docketed, and after it 

was fully briefed, the judge issued a supplemental memorandum 

further explaining his reasons for denying the rule 60 (b) 

motion. We have not considered the supplemental memorandum.
9

tenants correctly argue that the judge had not expressly set 

that date as a deadline, we take the judge to have concluded 

that the filing of the motion two months later, on June 24, 

2022, was unreasonably late. 

The judge had ample basis to do so. The rule 60 (b) motion 

was filed nearly ten months after entry of the default judgment;

at least four months after the tenants became aware that the 

original execution had issued; more than three months after the 

landlord's motion for reissuance of the execution made clear to 

the tenants that a default judgment had entered and that the 

landlord still sought to enforce it; and more than a month after 

the judge had heard and allowed the motion to reissue the 

execution, and then invested additional judicial resources in 

hearing and issuing a written decision on the tenants' motion 

for reconsideration. We cannot say the judge abused his 

discretion in viewing the rule 60 (b) motion as untimely.

ii. Meritorious claim. The tenants' rule 60 (b) motion 

argued, as explained in more detail infra, that the landlord's 

acceptance of RAFT funds created a contract that barred the 

landlord from proceeding with the eviction. The judge rejected 

this argument on the ground, among others, that there was no 

evidence the landlord had ever agreed to such terms. For 

somewhat different reasons, we conclude that the argument was 
10

not so meritorious, on this record, as to tip the balance in 

favor of vacating the judgment.7

The tenants relied on language contained in a RAFT award 

letter dated April 22, 2021, addressed to them and the landlord, 

apparently issued by a RAFT administering agency. The letter 

stated that the tenants' application for RAFT assistance had 

been approved in a specified amount. The letter was on a form 

issued by the Department of Housing and Community Development

(DHCD),8 and further stated that by accepting RAFT funds, the 

landlord agreed to the following terms, among others:

"I agree not to pursue eviction based on rent amounts 

reimbursed by these funds and agree to dismiss any pending 

eviction case that is based on or seeks to recover the 

reimbursed arrears. I may bring an eviction case in the 

future if [p]articipant fails to pay future rent due after 

the date of this award.

. . .

"Nothing in this [a]greement precludes the owner/agent from 

using any and all remedies available under law, including 

the institution of eviction proceedings against the 

[p]articipant, if the [p]articipant fails to pay any future 

rent due after the date of this award or otherwise violates 

the terms of tenancy."

7 The tenants urge us, even apart from their rule 60 (b) 

appeal, to reach the merits of this argument and finally resolve 

it in their favor. We decline to do so. What consequences flow 

from accepting RAFT funds is an issue of potentially broad

significance, the resolution of which requires, among other 

things, a fuller record of the statutory basis of the program 

and of landlords' relationship to it.

8 DHCD's functions were transferred to the new Executive 

Office of Housing and Livable Communities by St. 2023, c. 7.
11

The tenants also relied on a DHCD guidance document summarizing 

these terms.9

We will assume arguendo, unlike the judge, that the 

landlord, by accepting RAFT funds paid on the tenants' account, 

contractually bound itself "not to pursue eviction based on rent 

amounts reimbursed by these funds and . . . to dismiss any 

pending eviction case that is based on or seeks to recover the 

reimbursed arrears." Even if that were so, however, the problem 

for the tenants here is that they did not establish that the 

eviction sought to recover rent amounts for which the landlord 

received RAFT funds. Only some of the arrears were paid off by 

9 DHCD's 2021 RAFT "Policy Guidelines [Frequently Asked 

Questions]" document stated in relevant part that 

"[l]andlords/owners will continue to sign a contractual document 

and agree not to evict for any payments provided by RAFT. The 

landlord may still evict after the RAFT payment is received if 

the tenant does not pay any future rent due." Also, attached to 

the tenants' appellate brief is a 2021 letter from DHCD's chief 

counsel, addressed to a different Housing Court judge in an 

unrelated case, discussing the RAFT award letter terms quoted 

supra. The letter opined that if the RAFT funds accepted by the 

property owner are not sufficient to pay the full amount due, 

"the property owner is expected to either enter into a repayment 

agreement with the tenant . . . or waive whatever [remaining] 

amounts . . . are owed." The letter does not state that such an 

agreement or such a waiver is required by RAFT award terms or by 

law, nor does the letter itself have the force of law. In any 

event, because the letter was not before the judge on the rule 

60 (b) motion, we do not consider it further or otherwise rule 

on the obligations of landlords that accept RAFT funds.
12

RAFT funds, and the landlord appeared entitled to pursue this 

action to recover the arrears that remained.

More specifically, the rent ledger attached to the tenants' 

motion showed that as of April 8, 2021 (ten days after the 

action was commenced), the tenants were $16,040.07 in arrears on 

their rent.10 After further charges and payments, on May 3, 

2021, the landlord received a RAFT arrears payment of 

$13,633.79, but this still left the tenants $2,679.64 in 

arrears. On or about February 22, 2022, the landlord received a 

second RAFT arrears payment of $12,658.34, but the tenants 

submitted no evidence that this eliminated the arrears they had 

accumulated by that time, or any evidence of their account 

balance or arrearages during 2022.11

10 That ledger contained no information for any earlier 

date. Based on a separate ledger including entries only through 

December 1, 2020, the tenants argued that in the past the

landlord had improperly charged them for gas and electricity, 

but they submitted nothing establishing that any such amounts 

were included in the arrearages reflected on the more recent

ledger. On appeal the tenants argue for the first time that 

their arrearages included amounts for parking and storage, 

nonpayment of which they assert could not be a ground for 

eviction. They did not make this argument in their rule 60 (b) 

motion, and therefore we do not consider it.

11 Although we do not rely upon the point, the landlord's 

counsel represented to the judge at the rule 60 (b) hearing that 

at no point in the case had the RAFT payments completely 

eliminated the arrears and "zeroed the [tenants'] balance." 
13

In short, it appeared that, throughout the case, the 

landlord was seeking to recover some rent arrearages that had 

not been covered by RAFT payments.12 The judge could thus 

properly view the tenants' claim that the RAFT award terms 

contractually barred the landlord from pursuing the case as 

insufficiently meritorious on this record to warrant rule 60 (b) 

relief.

iii. When neglectful conduct occurred. The tenants' 

neglectful conduct occurred before judicial and opposing-party 

resources had been invested in a trial, a factor that ordinarily 

presents a better case for rule 60 (b) relief. See Berube, 7 

Mass. App. Ct. at 429 (rule more forgiving "where the mischief 

leading to the judgment occurs at the pretrial stage"). On the 

other hand, even after the tenants became aware of the default 

judgment and the execution, they disregarded the judge's 

invitation to seek rule 60 (b) relief, and instead raised other 

issues necessitating additional hearings, before ultimately 

filing their rule 60 (b) motion. Although the tenants were 

entitled to raise those other issues, their doing so before

12 The default judgment entered on August 30, 2021, awarded 

damages of only $2,027. The tenants' rule 60 (b) motion did 

not, however, advance any argument based on any discrepancy 

between that amount and the greater amount shown as due on the 

ledger attached to their motion.
14

filing the rule 60 (b) motion -- which might have mooted those 

issues -- could be viewed as unnecessarily burdening the court.

iv. Whether conduct was consciously chosen. The judge did 

not go so far as to say that the tenants' failure to appear for 

trial "was the product of a consciously chosen course of 

conduct." Berube, 7 Mass. App. Ct. at 431. He did, however, 

observe that the tenants "made no effort" to demonstrate 

excusable neglect. He evidently did not credit the tenants' 

vague, unsworn suggestions that they might have been uncertain 

about the August 27, 2021 trial date, or that medical issues 

prevented both of them from appearing in court on that date.13 

See Cicchese v. Tape Time Corp., 28 Mass. App. Ct. 72, 75 (1989)

(judge could properly consider absence of affidavit establishing 

reason for default).

v. Remaining Berube factors. As for prejudice to the 

other party, see Berube, 7 Mass. App. Ct. at 431, vacating the 

judgment might have exposed the landlord to the risk of further 

uncollectable rent arrearages,14 but the judge did not expressly 

consider this factor. The last Berube factor -- whether the 

13 Although the tenants' motion asserted that supporting 

affidavits were attached, and cited considerable caselaw for the 

proposition that affidavits were desirable or even required in 

these circumstances, no affidavits were attached.

14 At hearing on the rule 60 (b) motion, in response to the 

judge's question, the landlord represented that the then-current 

arrearage was "upwards of $12,000."
15

neglect was chargeable to counsel rather than the party, see id.

-- was not relevant here, where the tenants were selfrepresented at all times through their filing of this appeal. 

In light of all the foregoing, the judge did not abuse his 

discretion in denying the tenants' rule 60 (b) motion.

2. Reissuance of execution. The tenants argue that G. L. 

c. 235, § 23, second par. (§ 23), barred the judge from ordering 

the execution to reissue in June of 2022, which was more than 

three months after the entry of judgment. Section 23's second 

paragraph provides

"Executions for possession of premises rented or 

leased for dwelling purposes obtained in actions pursuant 

to chapter two hundred and thirty-nine shall not be issued 

later than three months following the date of judgment, 

except that any period during which execution was stayed by 

order of the court or by an agreement of the parties filed 

with the court shall be excluded from the computation of 

the period of limitation. Such executions shall be made 

returnable within three months after the date of issuance 

and shall state the date of issuance and the return date. 

No sheriff, constable, officer, or other person shall serve 

or levy upon any such execution for possession later than 

three months following the date of the issuance of the 

execution." (Emphasis added.)

Section 23 thus provides both an issuance period and a levy 

period. Any execution for possession must be issued within 

three months after judgment, although the running of that period

may be tolled by a court order or by a filed agreement of the 
16

parties. And any levy on such an execution must occur within 

three months after its issuance.15

Although the tenants did not raise their § 23 argument 

before the judge ordered the execution to reissue, as would have 

been preferable, they did assert it -- and they requested that 

the execution be recalled -- in their motion for clarification 

and for a stay pending appeal.16 The judge addressed the

argument at a time when he could have granted effective relief;

he issued an order rejecting the argument and denying the 

15 Although not at issue in this case, other statutes also 

bear on the time for issuing summary process executions relative 

to the time for appealing a judgment and while an appeal is 

pending. See G. L. c. 231, § 115; G. L. c. 235, § 16; G. L. 

c. 239, § 5 (a), (e), (h). See also Rule 13 of the Uniform 

Summary Process Rules (1980); Mass. R. Civ. P. 62 (d), 365 Mass. 

829 (1974); Adjartey v. Central Div. of Hous. Court Dep't, 481 

Mass. 830, 857-860 (2019). Here, the judgment against the 

tenants was a default judgment, which was not directly 

appealable. See Rule 12 of the Uniform Summary Process Rules 

(2004); Adjartey, supra at 856. Although the tenants were 

entitled to proceed as they did, by moving to vacate the default 

judgment and then appealing the order denying that motion, such 

an appeal does not by itself stay issuance of the execution. 

See Adjartey, supra at 856 n.15, 858.

16 The tenants did not label their motion as one seeking to 

recall the execution, but we look to the motion's substance, not 

solely to its label. See Care & Protection of Rashida, 488 

Mass. 217, 233, 236 (2021), S.C., 489 Mass. 128 (2022). Where 

the motion requested not merely a stay pending appeal but also 

recall of the execution, the judge's order, insofar as it denied 

the latter request, was properly appealed to a panel of this 

court.
17

motion, and the tenants timely appealed from that order.17 With 

the issue thus properly before us, we agree with the tenants 

that § 23 barred reissuance of the execution in this case.

The language of § 23 is straightforward, as is its 

application to the facts before us. After judgment for 

possession issued on August 30, 2021, the original execution for 

possession timely issued on September 22, 2021 -- within § 23's 

three-month issuance period. The landlord, however, did not 

cause levy on the execution to occur during § 23's three-month 

levy period. Instead, after the levy period expired, the 

landlord, on March 16, 2022, returned the execution to the court 

and moved for its reissuance. But that was well outside of 

§ 23's three-month issuance period, and the running of that 

period had not been tolled "by order of the court or by an 

agreement of the parties filed with the court," as § 23 permits. 

Therefore, the issuance period had expired, and under § 23 the 

17 Although the judge expressed doubt that his orders 

regarding the execution were appealable, we note that "[w]hile 

the issuance of an execution ordinarily may be a ministerial 

act, questions of law may be involved which require invocation 

of the judicial power, and decisions thereon by the [trial 

court] are reviewable by [the appellate courts]" (quotation and 

citation omitted). Boston v. Santosuosso, 308 Mass. 202, 206 

(1941). See generally First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bernier, 50 

Mass. App. Ct. 756 (2001) (reviewing and reversing order 

allowing late issuance of execution).
18

judge had no authority to order the execution to issue or 

reissue.18

The judge concluded that, for two reasons, the landlord's 

delay in requesting reissuance was excusable, so that § 23 did 

not bar reissuance. First, the judge stated, "the initially

issued execution was incomplete through the fault of the 

[c]ourt," in that the execution lacked the address of the 

premises at issue. The judge certainly had the authority to 

order the defective execution amended, had the landlord timely 

requested it. See Chesebro v. Barme, 163 Mass. 79, 81-82

(1895).19 But the landlord did not do so, despite having 

discovered the defect at some unspecified time in November 

2021.20 And § 23 contains no exception to the three-month 

18 This view of § 23 is not new. Attached to the tenants'

brief are copies of seven separate orders enforcing § 23's 

issuance period. The orders were issued by judges of the 

Housing Court between 2003 and 2019, a single justice of this 

court in 2000, and a single justice of the Supreme Judicial 

Court in 1988.

19 In Chesebro, the court said, "the general principle is 

that, when the judgment is recovered in a court having 

jurisdiction, and the execution is issued by the proper officer, 

irregularities either in the mode of issuing it or in the 

document itself do not make it void, and that it may be dealt 

with by the court upon motion of either party, and amended or 

annulled, as justice may require." 163 Mass. at 81-82.

20 The landlord could have accompanied such a request with a 

motion, or a written agreement signed by the parties, to stay 

issuance of the corrected execution. This could have stopped 

any further running of the three-month issuance period until 
19

issuance period for a case in which the initial execution is 

defective.

The judge's second reason for excusing the landlord's delay 

was that "the parties were in negotiations for a possible 

resolution of [t]enants' arrears through RAFT assistance by 

[l]andlord's forbearance during the time of the continuing postCOVID urgency." No doubt, settlements of summary process cases, 

even after judgment, are preferable to physical evictions on 

levy of execution. But § 23 contains no exception to the threemonth issuance period for a case in which the parties have been

engaged in settlement negotiations.

Of course, what § 23 does allow is for the running of the 

three-month issuance period to be tolled for "any period during 

which execution was stayed by order of the court or by an 

agreement of the parties filed with the court." If the parties 

here wanted more time to pursue settlement negotiations, then, 

at any time within the three-month issuance period, they could 

have filed with the court a written agreement to stay issuance 

of execution for whatever period they wished, or either party 

could have moved for an order staying such issuance.21 Had the 

such time as the landlord was prepared to move forward, or for 

such time as the parties agreed or as was otherwise ordered.

21 Apart from the issuance period, whether § 23 may also be 

read to allow the running of the three-month levy period to be 
20

execution already been issued at the time the landlord 

determined that it wanted more time to negotiate, then the 

landlord could have returned the execution to the court along 

with either a written agreement for a stay of issuance or a 

motion for such a stay. The landlord availed itself of none of 

these options. Instead, it allowed the three-month issuance 

period to lapse.

Although other statutes may affect the time for issuance or 

reissuance of a summary process execution for possession, the 

judge did not discuss how those statutes may apply in light of 

§ 23, nor have the parties done so on appeal. We therefore

merely note the existence of such statutes and leave for another 

day the questions they raise.22 One such statute is G. L. 

c. 235, § 17, which provides in part: "An original execution 

shall not issue after the expiration of one year after the party 

is first entitled to take it out; and an alias or other 

tolled by a court-filed agreement or a judge's order is a 

question not presented by this case and on which we express no 

view.

22 Similarly, we express no view on whether a landlord's 

only remedy if an execution is unavailable is to file another 

summary process action. See Duross v. Scudder Bay Capital, LLC, 

96 Mass. App. Ct. 833, 839-840 (2020) (discussing G. L. c. 239, 

§ 7, and preclusive effect of summary process judgment on 

subsequent litigation).
21

successive execution[23] shall not issue after the expiration of 

five years from the return day of that which preceded it."24 

Another such statute, G. L. c. 235, § 19, provides: "If a 

judgment remains unsatisfied after the expiration of the time 

for taking out execution thereon, the creditor may obtain a new 

execution by motion to the court in which such unsatisfied 

judgment was rendered, or he may at any time after the judgment, 

subject to [G. L. c. 260, § 20], bring a civil action thereon."25 

See First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bernier, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 

756, 759-760 (2001) (discussing relationship between §§ 17 and 

19).

Conclusion. So much of the order dated August 5, 2022, as 

denied the tenants' request to recall the execution as untimely 

is reversed; the order is otherwise affirmed, and the matter is 

23 An "alias execution" is "[a] second execution issued to 

enforce a judgment not fully satisfied by the original writ." 

Black's Law Dictionary 714 (11th ed. 2019).

24 "Section 17 has been a part of our statutes in several 

versions since 1692. St. 1692–3, c. 24, § 3. The critical time 

limitation language of § 17 has not varied in its essential 

command since that time." First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. 

Bernier, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 756, 757 (2001). Section 17 was last 

amended in 1948, by St. 1948, c. 113. In contrast, the language

of § 23 with which we are concerned here was added in 1987, by 

St. 1987, c. 357, § 1.

25 General Laws c. 260, § 20, provides: "A judgment or 

decree of a court of record of the United States or of any state 

thereof shall be presumed to be paid and satisfied at the 

expiration of twenty years after it was rendered."
22

remanded to the Housing Court where a new order shall enter 

recalling the execution.

So ordered.