Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Saade v. Homeward Residential, Inc.
Citations: 95 N.E.3d 300; 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1119Docket: 17–P–104
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; December 18, 2017; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
The plaintiff's appeal from a Superior Court judgment, which dismissed his complaint against foreign corporations, was affirmed. The dismissal arose from the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate valid legal service as required by the long-arm statute, G. L. c. 223A. 6(a). The plaintiff attempted to serve the corporations via registered mail addressed by name, instead of to designated individuals as mandated by G. L. c. 223, § 37. The motion judge, referencing Kagan v. United Vacuum Appliance Corp., ruled that such service was insufficient because it did not comply with statutory requirements for serving corporate officers or agents. The judge provided the plaintiff until November 1, 2014, to rectify the service issue or risk dismissal of his claims. Two years later, the complaint was dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to follow this order. The appellate court emphasized that Kagan's precedent was binding and reiterated the necessity of serving designated individuals, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments regarding the validity of his service attempts. The plaintiff's reliance on unrelated case law was deemed misplaced, and it was noted that he also failed to serve the Secretary of State as an alternative means of service. G. L. c. 223, § 38 permits service on the Secretary of State for foreign corporations, excluding insurance companies, under G. L. c. 156D, § 15.10. The plaintiff incorrectly interpreted this statute, claiming one defendant had no record with the Secretary of State and the other had withdrawn from business in the Commonwealth. However, the judge's order on August 20, 2014, clarified that service through the Secretary of State was valid. The court found no error in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint two years later due to his failure to file proof of proper service. The plaintiff argued that the judge's requirement to show proof of service by November 1, 2014, or provide good cause for an extension was an abuse of discretion, fearing that reserving the defendants would bar his claims due to timeliness issues. The court disagreed, noting the plaintiff did not include his complaint in the record, preventing a determination of when his claims accrued. The judge's order allowed for an extension if good cause was shown, and if the claims were timely filed initially, additional service within an extended period would not be untimely. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed, as the plaintiff failed to perfect service despite multiple opportunities. Additionally, the judge vacated defaults against two defendants due to improper service. The plaintiff's assertion of valid service under G. L. c. 223A, § 6, which allows service via mail for actual notice, was also deemed improper, given the relevant statutes governing service on foreign corporations.