Court Opinion

ID: 9943872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:06:06.721099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:35.212913
License: Public Domain

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13483

            KATHLEEN TRAHAN   vs.   STANLEY T. PELCZAR.

                       February 26, 2024.

   Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

     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. We affirm.

      In March 2023, Trahan filed, in the Superior Court, a
motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (1) and (6), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), in
this long-running breach of contract dispute. A judge denied
the motion. Trahan then sought relief from that judgment by
filing a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court. A
single justice denied the petition on the basis that Trahan had
an adequate alternative remedy, i.e., in the normal appellate
course. Trahan next filed, in the Appeals Court, a petition
pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. A single justice in
that court dismissed the petition on the basis that Trahan was
not seeking review of an interlocutory ruling. Rather, she was
seeking relief from the denial of her rule 60 (b) motion, and,
therefore, G. L. c. 231, § 118, did not apply.1 Trahan then
returned to the county court, where she filed a "renewed" G. L.
c. 211, § 3, petition. A different single justice denied the
petition.

    In her appeal to this court, Trahan argues that the "normal

    1  The Appeals Court single justice also noted that the
petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., was
untimely.
                                                                   2

course appellate proceedings" will not provide relief. She
states that the respondent has ignored, and continues to ignore,
certain payment obligations to her, and that if she had pursued
an appeal from the denial of her rule 60 (b) motion in the
Appeals Court -- that is, if she had proceeded in the normal
appellate course -- the respondent would simply have used that
time to "further ignore" his payment obligations. That is not a
basis for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. Similarly,
Trahan's dissatisfaction with certain lower court rulings and
"judicial errors" does not entitle her to relief pursuant G. L.
c. 211, § 3. As both single justices of this court and the
single justice of the Appeals Court have indicated, Trahan's
remedy was to appeal from the denial of her rule 60 (b) motion.2
That she did not do so because she believed that pursuing such
an appeal would not lead to the relief she seeks -- whether
because she thought it would take too long or otherwise -- does
not render that relief inadequate. See, e.g., Greco v. Plymouth
Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996) ("Relief under G. L.
c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where there are adequate and
effective routes other than c. 211, § 3, by which the
petitioning party may seek relief").

     The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

                                   Judgment affirmed.

     The case was submitted on briefs.
     Steven E. Kramer for the petitioner.
     Ronald W. Dunbar, Jr., & Jaffar Bari Shiek for the
respondent.

    2  Additionally, if the petitioner was dissatisfied with
other trial court rulings, prior to the denial of the most
recent motion pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b), 365 Mass. 828
(1974), there appears to be no reason why she could not have
sought relief from those rulings in the normal course. Indeed,
she did just that as to at least some trial court rulings. See
Trahan v. Pelczar, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (2022) (affirming
denial of Trahan's motion to amend her complaint and denial of
her motion to reconsider award of attorney's fees).