Oakville Development Corp. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Co.
Docket: No. 90-P-1029
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; April 27, 1992; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
In May 1990, Oakville Development Corporation and David Hoicka filed a sixteen-count complaint in the Superior Court against Commonwealth Mortgage Company and eighteen of its former employees, alleging wrongful default declaration by Commonwealth, leading to illegal foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiffs sought permission to record a memorandum of lis pendens and to enjoin the foreclosure sale, but both motions were denied on June 22, 1990. A subsequent motion for lis pendens was treated as a request for reconsideration and referred back to the original judge. The plaintiffs then filed an interlocutory appeal requesting reversal of the Superior Court's denial of the lis pendens. They did not appeal the separate injunction denial. After a hearing, the single justice affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of the lis pendens but issued an injunction against foreclosure until a final adjudication. The defendants appealed this injunction, arguing that the single justice lacked authority to issue it since it was not part of the original order. The court concurred, noting that G.L. c. 231, § 118 allows a single justice to modify or annul interlocutory orders but does not grant authority to issue new injunctions if the lower court denied one.
Limitations exist on the authority of a single justice when addressing petitions for relief under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first paragraph, which does not grant equity powers and only allows actions on interlocutory orders. In this case, the plaintiffs did not file a petition regarding the Superior Court judge’s denial of their motion to enjoin a foreclosure sale, focusing instead on the denial of their motion to record a memorandum of lis pendens. Consequently, the single justice could only act on the latter issue, without the authority to enjoin the foreclosure until a final decision on the merits in the Superior Court. As such, the injunction granted was dissolved.
The case references Sutherland v. Aolean Dev. Corp., which establishes that a party can appeal a judicial decision on a lis pendens recording to a panel of the Appeals Court or seek relief from a single justice. The plaintiffs did not object to the single justice's handling of their case. The defendants’ appeal to the panel is based on G. L. c. 231, § 118, second paragraph, which allows aggrieved parties to seek relief from interlocutory orders within thirty days. Furthermore, under G. L. c. 231, § 117, a single justice may grant injunctions during the appeal process. While the plaintiffs requested a specific injunction to prevent foreclosure until their appeal was resolved, the single justice issued a broader injunction that exceeded that request, which is not permissible under the governing statutes and rules.
