Courts and clerks

(2025) The 2025 amendment changed the heading of Rule 77(f) from "Massachusetts Rules of Electronic Filing" to "Electronic Signatures of Judges and Clerks." No change was made to the text of the rule. (2023) Rule 77(f) was added in 2021 to refer to Rule 14 of the Massachusetts Rules of Electronic Filing . The rule was amended again in 2023 to provide, to the extent not already authorized, for the use of electronic signatures of judges and clerks on orders, judgments, and notifications in all cases, regardless of whether documents in the case had been filed in paper form ("conventional method") or electronically. The term "conventional method" is defined in Rule 2 of the Massachusetts Rules of Electronic Filing as "procedures that would apply in the absence of electronic filing." The revised rule sets forth the format for an electronic signature, which is consistent with the format for an electronic signature of an attorney under Rule 13(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Electronic Filing. See Rule 14(a) and (b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Electronic Filing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Judicial Court issued an Order authorizing the temporary use of electronic signatures of judges and clerks. Order Concerning Electronic Signatures of Judges and Clerks , OE-144, adopted March 25, 2020 and effective March 26, 2020 (remaining in effect until further order of the court). The 2023 amendment to Rule 77(f) was intended to make permanent the authorization to use electronic signatures of judges and clerks in all cases governed by the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. (2021) The addition of Rule 77(f) is intended to allow the clerk or the court to use electronic signatures and electronic notifications as set forth in Rule 14 of the Massachusetts Rules of Electronic Filing. (2017) The 2017 amendment to Rule 77(d) adds electronic means as an option in addition to mail for the clerk to provide notice of an order or judgment to a party. The clerk may send notice to an attorney’s e-mail address on file with the Board of Bar Overseers; to an e-mail address that the attorney or party has provided pursuant to a court order or court rule; or to an email address that an attorney or party has provided to the clerk for that purpose. As in the case of mail notice, the clerk must make a note on the docket of the electronic notice. Where electronic notice is given, the clerk need not provide notice by mail. The rule contains provisions to address the situation where a self-represented litigant has not provided an e-mail address or no longer desires to receive electronic notice or where an attorney is not required to provide an e-mail address with the Board of Bar Overseers. (2009) Amendments to Rule 52(c) effective March 1, 2008 require findings of fact and rulings of law in jury-waived cases in the District Court if a party timely submits proposed findings and rulings. The March 2008 amendments were part of a group of amendments to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure in light of the adoption of the statewide one-trial system for civil cases. These amendments also deleted Rule 64A, which provided that a party seeking rulings of law in jury-waived cases in the District Court must submit to the court Requests for Rulings of Law. In light of the elimination of the procedure involving Requests for Rulings of Law, the 2009 amendment deleted the following sentence from Rule 77(d): “In the District Court, such notice shall indicate the court's ruling on any requests for rulings which may have been made.” The deletion of this sentence is not intended to change the existing practice by which the clerk sends to the parties or counsel a copy of the court’s findings and rulings. (1996) The merger of the District/Municipal Courts Rules of Civil Procedure into the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure necessitated minor changes to Rule 77. The language "for each county" previously appearing in the first sentence of Rule 77(b) has been deleted to take into account the fact that a county may contain a number of District Court divisions. A new second sentence has been added to Rule 77(d), drawn from now-repealed Rule 77(d) of the Dist./Mun.Cts.R.Civ.P., requiring that notice of entry of judgment in District Court civil actions must indicate "the court's ruling on any requests for ruling which may have been made." The last sentence of Rule 77(d) has also been amended to refer to the relevant rule governing appeal from the District Court to the Appellate Division of the District Court, namely Rule 4 of the District/Municipal Courts Rules for Appellate Division Appeal . Some changes to now-repealed Rule 77 of the Dist./Mun.Cts.R.Civ.P. as result of the merger should also be noted. Previously, Rule 77(b) of the Dist./Mun.Cts.R.Civ.P. provided that the clerk's office was to be open on all days "except Sundays and legal holidays." This has been eliminated in favor of the Mass.R.Civ.P. version, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. This should effect no change in existing District Court practice. The occasion of the merger of the two sets of rules also provided the opportunity to eliminate now-outdated references appearing in Rule 77(d) of the Dist./Mun.Cts.R.Civ.P. to a request for report and to a draft report, both of which were eliminated in 1994 with the adoption of the District/Municipal Courts Rules for Appellate Division Appeal. (1984) The purpose of this amendment is to remind lawyers that although Mass.R.Civ.P. 77(d) provides that "[l]ack of notice of the entry [of a judgment] by the clerk does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed . . .", the lack of notice may be relevant to a motion for relief from judgment under Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). See, for example, Chavoor v. Lewis, 383 Mass. 801 , 422 N.E.2d 1353 (1981), in which a plaintiff, whose counsel averred that he had never received notification of a call of the list nor of entry of judgment, had the judgment vacated almost two years after judgment pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) . See also 8A Smith and Zobel, Massachusetts Practice--Rules Practice, § 77.5, and citations therein. (1973) Rule 77(a) is taken substantially from Federal Rule 77(a). It does not require the clerk's office to be physically open at all times for the filing of pleadings or other papers. ( G.L. c. 220, § 6 provides that "Courts shall not be open on Sunday or a legal holiday, and courts, other than district courts, shall not be open on Saturday. . . .") Nor does this rule mean that "filing" may be accomplished by slipping the paper under the door of the clerk's office. It permits the filing of papers with the clerk, or with the judge if he so permits (see Rule 5(e) ) at other than business hours and outside the courthouse. Rule 77(b) requires the clerk's office to be open during business hours except Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Business hours refers to normal business hours as observed by the community. Rule 77(b) also authorizes the clerk to issue process and make entries which do not require allowance or order of the court. This confirms the authority conferred upon the clerk by Rule 55 (default), Rule 58 (entry of judgment) and Rule 68 (offer of judgment). Rule 77(c) remedies the difficulties occasionally arising where a clerk returns for correction without endorsement of receipt, a paper received by him for filing. Rule 77(d) requires the clerk, immediately upon entry of an order or judgment to serve a notice of entry by mail upon each party not in default, except where the order or judgment is entered in open court in the presence of the parties or their counsel. Such notice by mail is sufficient for all purposes under the rules. A party may, however, to ensure notice, serve notice of entry of a judgment or order in the manner provided in Rule 5 . Although under Rule 77(d) lack of notice does not authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, Appellate Rule 4 provides that upon a showing of excusable neglect the court may extend the time for appeal. A failure to learn of the entry of judgment could, in appropriate circumstances, so qualify. Denial of a motion to extend the time for appeal, where failure to appeal in a timely manner was due to a clerk's failure to give notice, has been held to constitute an abuse of discretion. See Commercial Credit Corp. v. United States, 175 F.2d 905 (8th Cir.1949). Rule 77(e) does not appear in the federal rules. If a case is to be heard in a county other than the county where the case was properly commenced (e.g., because of consolidation) the case remains on the docket of the original county and all papers are filed there. After the hearing, the papers in the case are returned to the county where the action was commenced. However if a case is transferred in response to a court order for change of venue, all the papers in the case are transferred to the transferee county and all further papers are filed there.