Court Opinion

ID: 9391813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 14:06:54.138111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.878337
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  22-P-840

                            SONDRA MYERS & others1

                                       vs.

                                   JON MYERS.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       This is an appeal in one of a series of cases between Jon

 Myers and various family members, including his father, Morey

 Myers; his mother, Sondra Myers; his now-deceased former wife,

 Margaret Carney; and his brother, David Nathan Myers.               Jon

 entered into a 2011 settlement agreement wherein he agreed to

 "cease and desist from . . . filing or threatening to file any

 and all lawsuits on any matter whatsoever against any of his

 family members."      Further, on February 11, 2014, Morey, Sondra,

 and Margaret entered into an agreement for judgment with Jon,

 where the parties agreed that Jon would be precluded from filing

 a new suit against each of them "or against any relative," among

 1 Morey Myers and Margaret Carney. Defendant Jon Myers asserts
 that plaintiff Margaret Carney died in 2016; however, no
 suggestion of death has been filed.
others, without first obtaining leave from the Regional

Administrative Justice.     The 2014 agreement for judgment was

entered as an order of the court.

     On June 28, 2022, pursuant to the agreement for judgment,

Jon filed a motion seeking approval to file a suit against

David.   On July 7, 2022, a Superior Court judge denied the

motion "because [Jon] identifie[d] no plausible claim, nor any

claim not barred by the prior judgment, and fail[ed] to identify

what relief [wa]s sought."    Jon's subsequent motion for

reconsideration was also denied.       This appeal followed, although

Jon does not attempt to explain how the judge erred.

     We discern no error.     The proposed suit is against a family

member, Jon's brother.    The motion states that the situation at

issue stems back to 1988, before the prior suits.      The claims

are barred by both the prior settlement agreement and the

agreement for judgment.   See Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526,

536 (2002) (claim preclusion bars relitigation of claim

dismissed with prejudice).2

     Conclusion.   The order dated July 7, 2022, denying the

request to commence new lawsuit is affirmed.      The order dated

2 While the motion that Jon filed was a request to file suit
against David, the motion was filed in a case involving Jon's
parents and his former wife. Jon's parents filed the appellees'
brief in this appeal.

                                   2
July 19, 2022, denying the motion for reconsideration is

affirmed.

                                      So ordered.

                                      By the Court (Milkey,
                                        Massing & Henry, JJ.3),

                                      Clerk

Entered:    May 3, 2023.

3   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  3