Source: http://masscases.com/cases/distapp/2014/2014massappdiv63.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:11:50+00:00

Document:
Robert E. Daidone for the plaintiff.
COVEN, J. In this appeal from a summary process action in which the trial judge, after a bench trial, made a written conclusion based on clear and convincing evidence that the termination of the tenancy of David Pressman (Pressman) by Jefferson at Admiral Hill Ltd. Partnership was not unlawful, we are unable to address the merits of Pressmans claims and dismiss the appeal.
It is elementary that the burden is on the appellant to prepare and furnish an adequate trial court record for review on appeal. Donovan v. Mahoney, 2012 Mass. App. Div. 4 , 5. Pressmans claims cannot be evaluated in the absence of a transcript of the trial. The trial judges ultimate conclusion that the termination of Pressmans tenancy was not in retaliation for his protected tenant activity can be reversed only if there existed no subsidiary facts to support that finding. Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635 , 642-643 (2003). That examination can be accomplished only by a review of the trial transcript. [Note 3] Likewise, a court of review cannot make a meaningful examination into the alleged bias of a trial judge or of a claim that a trial judge prevented a party from presenting evidence unless a transcript is presented for review.
[Note 1] The docket sheet indicates that Pressman filed a notice of appeal on the record of the proceedings, Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 8C, but filed a notice of appeal on an agreed statement of facts, see Rule 8B, simultaneous with the transfer of the appeal to this Division. Because the conclusion we reach would not result in a difference as to what type of appeal is before us, we do not need to resolve the issue.
§ 2A, which makes retaliatory eviction a defense, G.L. c. 186, § 18 prescribes monetary penalties against a landlord for such reprisal. Like G.L. c. 239, § 2A, G.L. c. 186, § 18 also creates a rebuttable presumption that action by the landlord within six months of the tenants complaint or report constitutes unlawful retaliation, which can be overcome only by clear and convincing proof by the landlord that he had an independent and justifiable basis for his eviction or other actions. Because Pressman has not provided us with a proper record, we need not dwell on what is exactly at issue.
[Note 3] The trial judge in written findings stated: The Court finds that [Pressmans] conduct around the unit and repeated violations of the rules of the [landlord] were disruptive and these were the basis of the decision of the [landlord] to terminate [Pressmans] tenancy. This, too, cannot be evaluated in the absence of a transcript.

References: v. 
 v. 

§ 2
 § 18
 § 2
 § 18