Title: Saade v. Price

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12513 
 
JACK SAADE  vs.  MATTHEW PRICE.1 
 
 
October 16, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Jack Saade appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, in which he sought the dissolution of a memorandum 
of lis pendens.  Saade was a defendant in an action in the 
Superior Court concerning certain real property in Somerville.  
On the motion of the plaintiff in that case, a judge endorsed 
the memorandum of lis pendens at issue here.  The parties 
reached an agreement in principle to settle the case.  After a 
dispute arose regarding that agreement, a judge in the Superior 
Court issued a judgment enforcing it.  Saade appealed from that 
judgment, challenging not only the enforcement of the settlement 
agreement, but also the endorsement of the memorandum of lis 
pendens.  A panel of the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment in 
an unpublished decision.  Price v. Saade, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 
(2018).  Saade filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition while the 
appeal was pending. 
 
 
Saade has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which 
requires a party challenging an interlocutory ruling of the 
trial court to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial 
court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any 
final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available 
                     
 
1 Doing business as Starlab Recording Company. 
 
2 
 
means."2  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  The rule does not apply here, as 
the case in the Superior Court has gone to final judgment.  See 
Carrington v. Commonwealth, 473 Mass. 1015, 1015 (2015).  
Nevertheless, it is clear that Saade had, and to some extent 
pursued, an avenue for relief in the ordinary appellate process.  
He appealed to the Appeals Court from the judgment of the 
Superior Court, raising his claims concerning the memorandum of 
lis pendens, and he may yet seek further appellate review in 
this court.3  The fact that, thus far, Saade has not received the 
relief he seeks does not render the ordinary appellate process 
an inadequate means of obtaining review of the Superior Court's 
decision.  "The court's extraordinary power of general 
superintendence under c. 211, § 3, is 'exercised sparingly, not 
as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to 
provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal 
process has run its course.'"  Carrington, supra, quoting Doyle 
v. Commonwealth, 472 Mass. 1002, 1003 (2015).  See Votta v. 
Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).  The 
single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying 
extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Jack Saade, pro se. 
 
                     
 
2 The rule also provides that "[t]he appeal shall be 
presented . . . on the papers filed in the single justice 
session" and that the petitioner must file a record appendix 
containing the relevant material.  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  The 
appendix filed by Saade is incomplete, as it omits several 
papers filed in the single justice session, including an 
opposition filed by the plaintiff in the underlying Superior 
Court case.  This presents a further reason not to disturb the 
single justice's decision. 
 
 
3 We allowed Saade's motions for an enlargement of time to 
file an application for further appellate review.  We express no 
view at this time on the merits of Saade's case.