Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/480/480mass1031.html
Timestamp: 2019-03-20 23:30:06
Document Index: 596276664

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 27', '§ 118', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 118', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§ 118']

ANDERSON vs. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, 480 Mass. 1031
SHAUNA ANDERSON vs. NIKOLAOS PANAGIOTOPOULOS & another. [Note 1]
480 Mass. 1031
SJC-12567
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Indigent. Moot Question. Practice, Civil, Affidavit, Moot case.
Anderson has filed a memorandum with this court pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a petitioner seeking relief from 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 means." Based
on her memorandum, we affirm the dismissal of the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition for at least three reasons.
First, the petition has become moot because the underlying case proceeded to a final judgment in the Housing Court, and the eviction has occurred. See Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 991 (2001).
Second, the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in dismissing the petition for failure to execute a proper affidavit of indigency, nor did he infringe on the petitioner's right of access to the courts in doing so. To qualify for a fee waiver, an applicant is required to submit an affidavit of indigency "sworn to under oath by the affiant." G. L. c. 261, § 27B. The language of the preprinted affidavit form (and the supplement to the affidavit, where applicable) envisions that the affidavit will be signed by the fee waiver applicant, under the penalties of perjury, based on his or her first-hand knowledge. He or she avers facts regarding his or her personal financial circumstances. It is an affidavit to be signed by a party, not a pleading to be signed by the party's counsel. [Note 2]
Third, even if we were to consider the underlying merits of Anderson's petition, i.e., her challenge to the denial of her request for a jury trial, she would fare no better. She is unable to demonstrate the unavailability of adequate alternative means of obtaining appellate review. See S.J.C. Rule 2:21. She has already sought interlocutory review of the ruling in question under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., and has been denied relief by a single justice of the Appeals Court. She was not entitled as of right to additional interlocutory review of that ruling pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. See Iagatta v. Iagatta, 448 Mass. 1016 (2007); Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice"). [Note 3] Moreover, there is a statutory right to appeal from a final judgment of the Housing Court in a summary process action, see G. L. c. 239, § 5, which she apparently did not pursue. She could have appealed from the Housing Court judgment, in which case the judgment of eviction would have been automatically stayed pending appeal, see Rule 13 of the Uniform Summary Process Rules, and could have argued to the appellate court that she was erroneously deprived of a jury trial.
[Note 1] Anastasia Panagiotopoulos.
[Note 2] To be clear, the petitioner's failure to file a properly signed affidavit in the first instance was not fatal. The single justice did not immediately dismiss her petition. He indicated in his first order what needed to be done to correct the situation and gave the petitioner and her counsel fourteen days to make what would have been a simple correction. More than a month later, nothing further having been filed, the single justice then dismissed the petition without prejudice. Because the order of dismissal was without prejudice, the petitioner could have refiled her petition at any time, accompanied by a properly signed affidavit. Instead, she waited three months after the single justice's initial order, and nearly two months after the final order of dismissal, to claim this appeal. In short, the petitioner and her counsel could easily have avoided the misfortune of having her petition dismissed and the time and expense of this appeal.
[Note 3] Anderson's petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, after a single justice of the Appeals Court had already denied her petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., was in its essence a second attempt to obtain review of the challenged interlocutory ruling of the trial court.