Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Mohan A. Harihar’s petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking relief from orders and judgments arising from foreclosure and eviction proceedings. The court held that Harihar had adequate alternative remedies through direct appeals and had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for extraordinary intervention.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the single justice properly denied Harihar's petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
- Whether Harihar demonstrated that he lacked an adequate and effective alternative remedy or that his claims presented an exceptional matter requiring the Supreme Judicial Court's extraordinary intervention.
- Whether Harihar was entitled to appointment of counsel in the proceeding.
Holdings
- Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was properly denied because Harihar had adequate and effective alternative remedies, principally direct appeals from adverse trial-court judgments.
- Harihar was not entitled to appointment of counsel because the proceeding did not involve a circumstance in which he had a right to counsel.
Key quotations
“"Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where there are adequate and effective routes other than c. 211, § 3, by which the petitioning party may seek relief."” (at 3)
Factual background
Harihar's house in Lowell was sold at a foreclosure auction in September 2010. U.S. Bank National Association subsequently brought a summary process action and obtained possession of the property. Harihar pursued extensive litigation in Massachusetts state and federal courts challenging the foreclosure, eviction, and related judicial proceedings, and sought to use a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition to invalidate numerous lower-court orders and obtain varied forms of relief.
Procedural history
Harihar filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition seeking relief from numerous orders and judgments arising from foreclosure and eviction litigation in the Land Court, Superior Court, and Housing Court. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, concluding that Harihar had adequate alternative remedies through direct appeals and had not shown an exceptional circumstance warranting extraordinary intervention.