Title: Trahan v. Pelczar

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13483 
 
KATHLEEN TRAHAN  vs.  STANLEY T. PELCZAR. 
 
 
February 26, 2024. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Kathleen Trahan, appeals from a judgment 
of a single justice of this court denying her petition pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
 In March 2023, Trahan filed, in the Superior Court, a 
motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 
Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (1) and (6), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), in 
this long-running breach of contract dispute.  A judge denied 
the motion.  Trahan then sought relief from that judgment by 
filing a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court.  A 
single justice denied the petition on the basis that Trahan had 
an adequate alternative remedy, i.e., in the normal appellate 
course.  Trahan next filed, in the Appeals Court, a petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par.  A single justice in 
that court dismissed the petition on the basis that Trahan was 
not seeking review of an interlocutory ruling.  Rather, she was 
seeking relief from the denial of her rule 60 (b) motion, and, 
therefore, G. L. c. 231, § 118, did not apply.1  Trahan then 
returned to the county court, where she filed a "renewed" G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition.  A different single justice denied the 
petition. 
 
 
 
In her appeal to this court, Trahan argues that the "normal 
 
 
1 The Appeals Court single justice also noted that the 
petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., was 
untimely.           
 
2 
course appellate proceedings" will not provide relief.  She 
states that the respondent has ignored, and continues to ignore, 
certain payment obligations to her, and that if she had pursued 
an appeal from the denial of her rule 60 (b) motion in the 
Appeals Court -- that is, if she had proceeded in the normal 
appellate course -- the respondent would simply have used that 
time to "further ignore" his payment obligations.  That is not a 
basis for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Similarly, 
Trahan's dissatisfaction with certain lower court rulings and 
"judicial errors" does not entitle her to relief pursuant G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  As both single justices of this court and the 
single justice of the Appeals Court have indicated, Trahan's 
remedy was to appeal from the denial of her rule 60 (b) motion.2  
That she did not do so because she believed that pursuing such 
an appeal would not lead to the relief she seeks -- whether 
because she thought it would take too long or otherwise -- does 
not render that relief inadequate.  See, e.g., Greco v. Plymouth 
Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996) ("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").           
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Steven E. Kramer for the petitioner. 
 
Ronald W. Dunbar, Jr., & Jaffar Bari Shiek for the 
respondent. 
 
 
2 Additionally, if the petitioner was dissatisfied with 
other trial court rulings, prior to the denial of the most 
recent motion pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b), 365 Mass. 828 
(1974), there appears to be no reason why she could not have 
sought relief from those rulings in the normal course.  Indeed, 
she did just that as to at least some trial court rulings.  See 
Trahan v. Pelczar, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (2022) (affirming 
denial of Trahan's motion to amend her complaint and denial of 
her motion to reconsider award of attorney's fees).