Kim v. Rosenthal (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-026-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11752 SARAH S. KIM vs. LLOYD ROSENTHAL.[1] March 2, 2016. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Sarah S. Kim appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying her petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and her complaint for relief in the nature of certiorari and mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 249, §§ 4, 5 (collectively, petition). We affirm. In November, 2012, the respondent, Lloyd Rosenthal, commenced a summary process action against Kim in the District Court. Kim’s condominium unit had been foreclosed upon, and Rosenthal was the new owner.[2] The court ruled in Rosenthal’s favor, and Kim appealed to the Appellate Division of the District Court, which affirmed the judgment. Kim then filed her petition in the county court, stating that she was seeking relief from the Appellate Division decision and also that she “prays the Honorable Court to review and correct errors made in the Superior Court (for Suffolk County); the Land Court, and the Appeals Court, resulting in unwarranted loss of [her] two real properties.” The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The crux of Kim’s argument, as best we can discern from the record before us, appears to be that the attorney or attorneys who represented the plaintiff in the proceedings that led to the foreclosure of Kim’s condominium committed “egregious . . . fraud[].” In Kim’s view, that purported fraud rendered void any judgments that led to the current situation. Essentially, she appears to be arguing that the judgment against her in the summary process action is void because the underlying foreclosure is void. Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied “where there are adequate and effective routes . . . by which the petitioning party may seek relief.” Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996). Similarly, “[r]elief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006), citing Forte v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 1019, 1020 (1999). See Picciotto v. Appeals Court (No. 2), 457 Mass. 1002, 1002, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1044 (2010), quoting G. L. c. 249, § 4 (“certiorari relief designed to correct errors ‘not otherwise reviewable by motion or by appeal’”). The […]