Source: http://masscases.com/cases/distapp/2011/2011massappdiv27.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:37:10+00:00

Document:
Present: LoConto, P.J., Gardner & MacLeod, JJ.
John M. Dombrowski for the plaintiff.
Guy A. Carbone for the defendants.
2009 Mass. App. Div. 183 , 184.
Following a hearing in response to this Divisions order, the trial judge endorsed a proposed order granting the Aronsons $5,000.00 in legal fees, adding after hearing and reflection on decision by Appellate Division. Thereafter, the Aronsons filed a motion seeking reconsideration and clarification of this order. After another hearing held on October 30, 2009, the trial judge issued a memorandum of decision dated April 12, 2010, awarding the Aronsons $1.00 for violations of Chapter 142A, and $5,340.00 in attorneys fees. Thereafter, the Aronsons filed a notice of appeal, and elected to file an expedited appeal pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 8A. Some procedural irregularities with this second appeal require comment.
1. As originally filed, the Aronsons second appeal concerned the trial courts failure to apply the applicable law in determining reasonable attorneys fees. Specifically, the Aronsons alleged that the trial judge failed to assess reasonable attorneys fees under the lodestar method where there existed clear violations of Chapter 93A. See Fontaine v. Ebtec Corp., 415 Mass. 309 , 324-325 (1993). DeBettencourt filed an objection to Aronsons expedited appeal, which was met with a motion by the Aronsons to vacate deBettencourts objection. Thereafter, the court conducted two hearings, and as a result, the parties agreed, and the court acquiesced, to a stipulation that the sole issue on appeal would not be the reasonableness of attorneys fees, but whether the court as a matter of law erred when the Court in its Memorandum of Decision dated April 12, 2010 awarded $1.00 to the defendants since, according to the Court, violations of G.L. Chapter 142A did not result in the damage incurred by the defendants/home owners for which damage the Court awarded the defendants $15,000. In their briefs and during their oral arguments, counsel limited themselves to the single issue of the appropriateness and adequacy of the award of $1.00 in damages to the Aronsons for violations of Chapter 142A, and specifically requested that the issue of the award of attorneys fees be reserved for further appeal.
Rule 8A(b) of the Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. is clear. If any party objects to the contents of the expedited appeal, said party, within ten days of filing, shall file in the trial court and serve upon the other parties a written statement of the objections. The timely filing of objections shall automatically terminate further proceedings under this rule. Additionally, the comments advise that under this rule, the issues stated in the notice of appeal may not be added to in an expedited appeal. Here, deBettencourts objection to the Aronsons designation of the method of appeal not only failed to result in the termination of this method of appeal, but led to an agreement by the parties and the court to settle upon an issue not addressed in either the notice of appeal or the appeal itself. Notwithstanding the failure to comply with the rule, we will address the issue so agreed upon, but we are not restrained from addressing other issues necessary for a resolution of this appeal.
work to be done, and information about the contractor. G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a). The law permits the homeowner to enforce violations of the law in a court action to enjoin said violations and to require the contractor to complete the work. Additionally, the law permits the homeowner to seek recovery for any damages sustained as a result of the contractors violation. G.L. c. 142A, § 3(a). Violations of any provision of this law shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act under the provisions of G.L. c. 93A, permitting the homeowner to seek double or treble damages, plus attorneys fees. G.L. c. 142A, § 17.
form of attorneys fees may not be had. Jet Line Servs., Inc. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 404 Mass. 706 , 718 (1989). Where we have concluded that the Aronsons suffered no loss of money or property as a result of the contractors violation of Chapter 142A, they are not entitled to an award of attorneys fees.
3. Order of Judgment. The trial judge found that deBettencourt was entitled to an award of $18,476.00 for unpaid labor and material. He also found that the Aronsons were entitled to an award of $15,000.00 in damages as indicated. The trial judge went on to offset the awards and order that judgment enter in favor of deBettencourt for the difference. Rule 58 of the Mass. R. Civ. P. governs the entry of judgments. The rule requires that every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. Although the claims of both parties are related in fact, the relief ordered by the trial judge entailed distinct dispositions requiring separate judgments. Separate judgments would properly reflect the decision reached by the trial judge in deciding the respective claims.
Therefore, we vacate the $1.00 finding for the Aronsons on their counterclaim alleging a violation of Chapter 142A, and vacate the award of $5,340.00 in attorneys fees. We order that judgment enter for deBettencourt in the amount of $18,476.00, plus costs and interest, and a separate judgment enter in favor of the Aronsons on their counterclaim in the amount of $15,000.00, plus costs and interest.
[Note 1] Doing business as SMD Construction Company.
[Note 3] The Aronsons are not entitled to the minimum damages of $25.00 where they have failed to show that they have been injured by an act or practice made unlawful under Chapter 93A. Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151 , 165 (1985).

References: v. 
 § 2
 § 3
 § 17
 v. 
 v.