Title: Trahan v. Pelczar
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12822
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: January 10, 2020

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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; SJCReportersjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12822 
 
KATHLEEN TRAHAN  vs.  STANLEY J. PELCZAR. 
 
 
January 10, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Disqualification of judge. 
 
 
The petitioner, Kathleen Trahan, appeals from a judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying her petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, and related motions.  We affirm. 
Trahan and the respondent, Stanley J. Pelczar, are in the 
midst of civil litigation in the Superior Court over payments 
owed to Trahan under a settlement agreement.  Thus far, Trahan 
has prevailed on the issue of liability in her claims against 
Pelczar, and a judge in that court has ordered that a portion of 
certain monthly payments Pelczar was to receive under a divorce 
settlement be placed into escrow.1  Some remaining counterclaims 
by Pelczar, as well as the issue of damages concerning Trahan's 
claims, continue to be litigated.  Following the allowance of 
certain additional discovery related to Pelczar's counterclaims, 
Trahan moved for the Superior Court judge to recuse himself.  
The judge denied the motion. 
In her petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, Trahan 
requested an order requiring the Superior Court judge to recuse 
himself.  She also filed motions in the county court to amend 
the attachment and escrow arrangements that the Superior Court 
had put into place and to restrain Pelczar from pursuing a 
contempt action in the Essex Division of the Probate and Family 
Court Department related to the payments subject to escrow.  The 
                                                          
 
 
1 Pelczar's former wife is named as a reach-and-apply 
defendant in the underlying Superior Court action. 
2 
 
 
 
single justice denied the petition and all other relief sought 
in Trahan's motions.  This appeal followed. 
The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a showing that 
"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."  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  We 
see no reason why Trahan could not have sought interlocutory 
review of the judge's rulings under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first 
par.  See 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.").  And, as to the 
motion to recuse, "there is no reason why the denial of any such 
motion could not be adequately addressed in a direct appeal from 
any adverse judgment."  Jian Jiang v. Qilun Liu, 481 Mass. 1024, 
1024 (2019), citing Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010, 1010 
(2002). 
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 
denying relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Steven E. Kramer for the petitioner.