Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/32/32massappct469.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:12:38+00:00

Document:
Present: DREBEN, KASS, & GREENBERG, JJ.
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 6, 1989.
A motion to set aside a default was considered by Roger J. Donahue, J., and a proceeding to establish damages was heard by him.
Frank A. Gaynor, III, for the defendants.
Harley H. Anderson (Kazimieras V. Stasiukevicius with him) for the plaintiff.
to Mass.R.Civ.P. 55(a), 365 Mass. 822 (1974), in the assessment of damages, and in the failure of the judge to make findings on damages.
1. A default was entered after the defendants failed to respond to the complaint. The defendants sought by motion to set it aside pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 55(c), 365 Mass. 823 (1974).
There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of that motion or of the defendants' subsequent motion for reconsideration. The defendants failed to accompany their motion, as required, with an affidavit setting forth the facts and circumstances, including the nature of their defenses, upon which they relied. New England Allbank for Sav. v. Rouleau, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 135 , 140 (1989). Smith & Zobel, Massachusetts Rules Practice Section 55.8 (1977). See Burger Chef Sys., Inc. v. Servfast of Brockton, Inc., 393 Mass. 287 , 289 n.4 (1984). Moreover, the judge was not required to accept as "good cause," under rule 55(c), the claim asserted in the defendants' motion that they were under the mistaken belief that an answer had been filed, nor was he obliged to accept their conclusory statement that they had valid defenses.
2. At the hearing on damages, held in two parts, the defendants attempted to show that the fair value of the plaintiff's work was less than alleged and that the plaintiff's work was faulty -- there were leaks in the basement and certain pipes froze.
work was less than the plaintiff claimed. [Note 2] If this was the judge's view, it was incorrect.
In Productora e Importadora de Papel, S.A. de C.V. v. Fleming, 376 Mass. 826 , 832-835 (1978), the Supreme Judicial Court, in discussing the preclusive effect of a default judgment, held that a default does not concede the amount of damages nor does a default admit mere conclusions of law. See also Plasko v. Orser, 373 Mass. 40 , 43-44 (1977); 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Section 2688 (1973); Mass.R.Civ.P. 8(d), 365 Mass. 750 (1974).
The plaintiff in its pleading asserted that the fair value of its services not already paid for by the defendants was $43,000. [Note 3] The defendants were entitled to contest that amount and to show that the fair value of the plaintiff's work was less than claimed. See Productora e Importadora de Papel, S.A. de C.V. v. Fleming, 376 Mass. at 841, where the court held that it was error not to let the defendant produce evidence that certain expenditures made by the plaintiff were unreasonable. See also Fehlhaber v. Indian Trails, Inc., 425 F. 2d 715, 717 (3d Cir. 1970) (determination of relative degree of fault among joint tortfeasors is open at hearing on assessment of damages and is not concluded by entry of default); Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F. 2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974) (punitive damages cannot be fixed without an evidentiary hearing to determine how egregious was the conduct of the defendant).
The order denying the motion to vacate the default is affirmed. The judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for a new hearing on damages. If, as it presently appears, the dispute as to fair value raises issues of credibility, the judge should hold a full evidentiary hearing and not rely on the arguments of counsel. See National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Walsh, 27 Mass. App. Ct. at 158.
He should also, as required, make findings of fact. See Kenney v. Rust, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 699 , 704-705 (1984), and cases cited.
[Note 2] No evidence as to a definite contract price was offered, and the hearing was conducted on the basis of determining the fair value of the work.
[Note 3] At the hearing the plaintiff conceded that the amount requested in the pleading was incorrect as a result of an error in computation and that the correct amount due was $38,628.35.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.