Title: Stevenson v. TND Homes I LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12581
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2019

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12581 
 
JANICE STEVENSON1  vs.  TND HOMES I LLC. 
 
 
April 22, 2019. 
 
 
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari. 
 
 
 
The plaintiff, Janice Stevenson, appeals from a judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying her complaint for relief 
in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4.  We 
affirm. 
 
 
As best we can discern from the record, which is sparse and 
unclear, Stevenson was the defendant in a summary process action 
in the Eastern Division of the Housing Court Department.  
According to Stevenson, she is a "low income housing tax credit" 
tenant and, as such, has a right to enforce a "recorded 
restrictive covenant."  She appears to be arguing that the 
Housing Court does not have jurisdiction to address the 
enforcement of the alleged covenant and, thus, that any eviction 
that resulted from a summary process action in that context and 
in that court is not valid.  The single justice denied relief 
without a hearing. 
 
 
Certiorari review is designed to "correct errors in 
proceedings which are not . . . otherwise reviewable by motion 
or by appeal" (emphasis added).  G. L. c. 249, § 4.  Stevenson 
                                                 
 
1 The plaintiff appears pro se and purports to represent 
both herself and another individual.  Although she of course may 
represent herself, she may not represent another.  See Varney 
Enters., Inc. v. WMF, Inc., 402 Mass. 79, 82 (1988) ("person 
appearing pro se does not represent another").  To the extent 
that the petitioner also seeks to represent all similarly 
situated individuals, the same holds true. 
2 
 
 
has failed to carry her burden to demonstrate that her claims 
were not otherwise reviewable.  She could have sought review of 
her claims, including her claim that the Housing Court did not 
have jurisdiction or failed to address the jurisdictional issue, 
in a direct appeal to the Appeals Court from the Housing Court 
judgment against her (see Rule 12 of the Uniform Summary Process 
Rules [2004]) or in an appropriate postjudgment motion in the 
trial court (see Rule 11[b] of the Uniform Summary Process Rules 
[1980]).  It was not appropriate to raise those claims in a 
certiorari action commenced in this court.  See Brown v. Federal 
Nat'l Mtge. Ass'n, 481 Mass. 1036, 1037 (2019) (although subject 
matter jurisdiction claims can be raised at any time, this does 
not mean that such issues "can always be raised in every context 
and in every forum"); Picciotto v. Appeals Court (No. 2), 457 
Mass. 1002, 1002, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1044 (2010) (denying 
certiorari review where petitioners had other adequate avenue 
for review). 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 249, § 4. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Janice Stevenson, pro se. 
 
Scott D. Carman for the defendant.