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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12309

LAUREN HODGES vs. MIKKEL THORUP.

August 18, 2017.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

The petitioner, Lauren Hodges, appeals from a judgment of a 

single justice of this court denying her petition pursuant to 

G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

As best we can discern from the record before us, the 

dispute between the parties stems from the plan of the 

respondent, Mikkel Thorup, to sell a home that he owns in 

Shutesbury. The petitioner had been residing in the home, off 

and on, while the respondent resided overseas. The respondent 

notified the petitioner that he wanted to sell the property; had 

a notice to vacate served on her; and eventually commenced a 

summary process action in the Housing Court. After a trial, a

judge found in favor of the respondent. The petitioner

subsequently filed numerous posttrial motions, including a 

motion for a new trial and a motion to vacate the judgment, all 

of which were denied. Meanwhile, the respondent filed a motion 

for injunctive relief to preclude the petitioner from occupying 

the premises, which was allowed.

It appears from the Housing Court docket that the 

petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment as 

well as from at least some, if not all, of the denials of her 

posttrial motions. She also filed, in the county court, a 

petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. In the petition, she 

argued, among other things, that the Housing Court lacked 

jurisdiction, and she asked the court to vacate the decision. 

She also sought attorney's fees, although she has appeared pro 
2

se throughout the proceedings. The single justice denied the 

petition without a hearing.

The petitioner has now filed a memorandum and appendix 

pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), 

although it is not clear that she is challenging any 

interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Regardless whether 

rule 2:21 applies, however, the petitioner has not demonstrated 

that she cannot otherwise obtain adequate appellate review. She 

argues that the jurisdictional issue "must be examined," but 

there is no reason why it cannot be adequately addressed in her

appeal from the judgment against her. Relief under G. L. 

c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where, as here, there are other 

avenues by which the petitioner may adequately seek 

relief. Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 

(1996), and cases cited. Furthermore, as to the petitioner's 

argument that she cannot obtain adequate review of the allowance 

of the respondent's motion for injunctive relief because the 

"status quo cannot wait for appellate review," her remedy lies 

in the Appeals Court. Indeed, she has already sought relief in 

that court from a single justice, in the form of a motion to 

stay, at the same time that she sought relief in this court, via 

her G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition.

In short, this case does not present a situation where 

extraordinary relief from this court is required, and the single 

justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief

under G. L. c. 211, § 3.1

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 

a memorandum of law.

Lauren Hodges, pro se.

1 The single justice also denied the petitioner's motion to 

impound, which the petitioner filed alongside her G. L. c. 211, 

§ 3, petition. There was no error in the single justice's 

decision to deny impoundment, and to the extent that the 

petitioner seeks impoundment in this court, such request is also 

denied.