Title: VonIderstein v. Eresian

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13424 
 
DOUGLAS VonIDERSTEIN, trustee,1 & another2  vs.  ARA ERESIAN, 
JR., & another.3 
 
 
November 6, 2023. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Arrest.  Practice, Criminal, Warrant.  Land Court, 
Jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction, Land Court.  Judgment, 
Enforcement. 
 
 
 
Douglas and Linda VonIderstein, as trustees of the 
VonIderstein Realty Trust (petitioners), appeal from a judgment 
of the county court denying, without a hearing, their petition 
for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
The petitioners are the defendants in a Land Court action 
commenced in 2013 by RY-CO International, Ltd. (RY-CO), one of 
the respondents in this matter.  On the petitioners' motion, RY-
CO's complaint was dismissed.  That judgment was affirmed by the 
Appeals Court, RY-CO Int'l, Ltd. v. VonIderstein, 89 Mass. App. 
Ct. 1130 (2016), and this court denied further appellate review.  
477 Mass. 1110 (2017).  RY-CO's subsequent motion for relief 
from the judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (6), 365 
Mass. 828 (1974), was denied.  The Appeals Court not only 
affirmed that order but also ruled that RY-CO's appeal was 
frivolous and awarded attorney's fees and costs to the 
petitioners.  RY-CO Int'l, Ltd. v. VonIderstein, 95 Mass. App. 
 
1 Of VonIderstein Realty Trust. 
 
2 Linda VonIderstein, trustee of VonIderstein Realty Trust. 
 
3 RY-CO International, Ltd. 
2 
 
Ct. 1113 (2019).4  The petitioners have since been attempting to 
enforce that award in the Land Court.  To that end, they 
obtained an order requiring Ara Eresian, Jr., who is the 
president of RY-CO and the other respondent in this matter, to 
identify all real estate in which he holds an interest.  Eresian 
did not comply with that order, and a judgment of civil contempt 
entered.  In addition, a capias issued for Eresian's arrest.  
The petitioners, alleging that Eresian was evading service of 
the capias, requested that the Land Court judge issue an arrest 
warrant authorizing entry into his home.  The Land Court judge 
denied that request.  Sometime thereafter, after the 
petitioners' attorney represented that Eresian was continuing to 
evade service, the judge stated that "[i]f the [petitioners] 
seek a criminal warrant for Ara Eresian, Jr., from [the] court, 
they must provide the court with a memorandum detailing the 
grounds and authority [the] court has to issue such a warrant."  
The petitioners did not file such a memorandum.  Instead, they 
filed their petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
requesting that the single justice issue an order authorizing 
the Land Court judge to issue an arrest warrant.  The single 
justice denied relief without a hearing.  In a subsequent 
memorandum, the single justice stated that the petitioners had 
not demonstrated that they lacked an adequate alternative remedy 
or that their petition "present[ed] the type of exceptional 
matter that requires the court's extraordinary intervention."  
Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 25 (2019). 
 
 
The petitioners have filed a memorandum and appendix 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  
That rule does not apply in these circumstances, as there is no 
"challenged interlocutory ruling in the trial court."  S.J.C. 
Rule 2:21 (1).  The Land Court judge's denial of the request for 
an arrest warrant was not an interlocutory ruling, as the case 
in the Land Court has gone to final judgment.  See Scott v. WM 
Oak Grove Village, LLC, 488 Mass. 1019, 1020 (2021).  Neither 
the request nor the denial disturbed the finality of the 
judgment dismissing RY-CO's complaint.  Moreover, to the extent 
that the petition might be interpreted not as a direct challenge 
to the judge's denial of the petitioners' request but as a new 
and independent request that the single justice authorize the 
judge to issue an arrest warrant, there is likewise no 
challenged interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  
 
4 It appears that RY-CO filed a letter expressing its intent 
to apply for further appellate review after this decision by the 
Appeals Court.  However, it did not file an application. 
3 
 
Nonetheless, it is clear on the record before us that the single 
justice did not err or abuse his discretion by denying relief. 
 
 
As the parties seeking to invoke this court's extraordinary 
power, the petitioners bore the burden of "demonstrat[ing] both 
'"error that cannot be remedied under the ordinary review 
process" and a "substantial claim of violation of [his] 
substantive rights."'"  Ardaneh v. Commonwealth, 492 Mass. 1019, 
1020 (2023), quoting Care & Protection of Zita, 455 Mass. 272, 
277-278 (2009).  See Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. 
Operation Rescue, 406 Mass. 701, 706 (1990).  The petitioners 
scarcely addressed this requirement in their petition, merely 
asserting that Eresian's conduct showed that only the single 
justice could grant the relief they needed.  They offered no 
reason why they could not have appealed to the Appeals Court 
from the denial of their request for an arrest warrant, nor did 
they explain in their petition their failure to file the written 
memorandum suggested by the judge, which might have persuaded 
him to issue the warrant.5  Where the petitioners failed to make 
the required showing that they lacked an adequate alternative 
remedy, the single justice neither erred nor abused his 
discretion by denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
David J. Fine for the petitioners. 
 
 
5 The petitioners now state that they were unable to find 
any authority showing that the Land Court judge had the power to 
issue an arrest warrant.  Even if this meant that filing a 
written memorandum would not have been an adequate remedy, an 
issue we do not decide, this argument was not presented in their 
petition.  The single justice cannot have abused his discretion 
by failing to consider an argument that was not made before him.  
Moreover, if indeed the Land Court judge lacked authority to 
issue an arrest warrant, the single justice could not have been 
obligated to order him to do so.