
    Ralph W. WHITEMAN, JR. and Richard W. WHITEMAN, d.b.a. WHITEMAN BROTHERS V. Brian A. DONELSON and Shirley A. DONELSON
    No. 292
    District Court Department Appellate Division, Western District Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    
      Date: July 3,1981
    James M. Kessler, counsel for plaintiffs
    Francis E. Dolan, Jr., counsel for defendants
   DECISION AND ORDER

This cause came on to and was heard in the Appellate Division for the Western District sitting at Springfield upon Report from the Greenfield Division, and, no error having been found,

It is .hereby

ORDERED: That the Clerk of the Greenfield Division make the following entry in said case on the docket of said

Court, namely: Report dismissed.

William T. Walsh, Presiding Indice

Mel T. Greenberg, Justice

Opinion filed herewith.

Robert E. Fein, Clerk

OPINION

WALSH, P.J.

This is an appeal from a ruling by the trial justice denying motions by the plaintiffs requesting an extension of time to file a request for report and a draft report.

On January 4, 1980, after trial, judgment was entered in the above-entitled action. On January 24, 1980 the plaintiffs filed motions to extend time to request a report and to file a draft report until January 24, 1980. On February 21, 1980 the trial justice denied plaintiffs’ motion to extend time to request a report and file a draft report on the grounds that a motion to extend time to request a report must be filed within 10 days of entry of judgment.

On March 4, 1980 plaintiffs moved for a rehearing on its motions. On March 12, 1980 the motions were denied on the same grounds. On March 19, 1980 this request for report was filed.

The plaintiffs seek to test the propriety of the judge’s denial of their original motions to extend time to request a re- and to file a draft report pursuant to Dist./Mun. R. Civ. P. Rule 64 (c) (1) (i) and (ii). However, in order to do so, they must first comply with the same sections of the Rules after the judge ruled on their motions. This we fed they have failed to do.

The request for report on the judge’s ruling was actually not filed until March 19, 1980, well outside the time limits prescribed in Rule 64 (c) (1) (i) and (ii). Admittedly, a motion for rehearing was filed on March 4, 1980, but this is not the type of motion.which affects the running of time for filing requests for reports and draft reports. Rule 64 (c) (1) (iii). Moreover, the request for rehearing was not filed until 12 days after the original motions were ruled on. The time for requesting a report and filing a draft report had expired, absent proper motions bang filed. Rule 64 (c) (1) (i) and (ii).

For the foregoing reasons, the report is ordered dismissed.

William T. Walsh, P.J.

Mel L. Greenberg, J.

This certifies that this is the opinion of the Appellate Division in this cause.

Robert E. Fein, Clerk 
      
       Judge Paul V. Mullaney's term on the Appellate Division had expired prior to the filing of the opinion in this case.
     