Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Sarah S. Kim’s petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and her claims for certiorari and mandamus relief. The court held that Kim had an adequate and effective avenue for relief because she could have appealed the District Court Appellate Division decision to the Appeals Court, and that issues relating to earlier foreclosure proceedings were not properly before the court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the single justice properly denied extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, where Kim had an adequate and effective avenue of relief by appealing the Appellate Division decision to the Appeals Court.
- Whether relief in the nature of certiorari or mandamus was available to challenge alleged errors in the foreclosure and related proceedings when those issues could be pursued through ordinary appellate remedies.
- Whether Kim's motion to stay or dismiss without prejudice based on standing and subject matter jurisdiction presented claims properly before the court in the G. L. c. 211, § 3 proceeding.
Holdings
- Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied when the petitioner has an adequate and effective alternative route for seeking relief. Because Kim could have appealed the Appellate Division decision to the Appeals Court, she could not establish the absence or inadequacy of another remedy.
- Relief in the nature of mandamus or certiorari is unavailable when another adequate remedy, including an ordinary appeal, exists.
- Claims relating to proceedings that preceded the summary process action were not properly reviewable through Kim's current G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition when Kim had opportunities to raise those issues in earlier appeals.
Key quotations
“Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied "where there are adequate and effective routes . . . by which the petitioning party may seek relief."” (473 Mass. at 1030)
“Similarly, "[r]elief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available."” (473 Mass. at 1030)
“The petitioner bears the burden to allege and demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other remedies.” (473 Mass. at 1030)
Factual background
In November 2012, Lloyd Rosenthal commenced a summary process action against Sarah S. Kim in the District Court after Kim's condominium unit had been foreclosed upon and Rosenthal became the new owner. The District Court ruled for Rosenthal, and the Appellate Division affirmed. Kim claimed that attorneys involved in the foreclosure proceedings had committed egregious fraud and argued that the alleged fraud rendered the foreclosure and the subsequent summary process judgment void.
Procedural history
Rosenthal obtained a judgment against Kim in a District Court summary process action after acquiring Kim's condominium unit through foreclosure. The District Court Appellate Division affirmed, and Kim then sought extraordinary relief in the county court, challenging the Appellate Division decision and asserting that alleged fraud in the underlying foreclosure rendered the resulting judgments void. A single justice denied the petition without a hearing, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.