L&S Realty, LLC v. Karen R. Merritt.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-1202
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

24-P-1202

L&S REALTY, LLC

vs.

KAREN R. MERRITT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

This is an action arising out of a post-foreclosure summary

process complaint filed by the plaintiff, L&S Realty, LLC, for

possession of a home previously occupied by the pro se

defendant, Karen Merritt. The defendant appeals from the order

of a single justice of this court denying her request to stay

levy of an execution issued by a judge of the Housing Court and

from the subsequent denial of her motion for reconsideration.

We affirm.

Background. This summary process matter has been the

subject of lengthy proceedings in both the Housing Court and

this court. In 2019 the plaintiff bought the property, which

includes a single-family home, in Rehoboth at a foreclosure sale. After the sale, the plaintiff brought an action for

declaratory relief and then a summary process action for

possession of the property. In March 2021, the Housing Court

judge ordered the defendants1 to pay use and occupancy fees, and

six months later, on September 20, 2021, summary judgment issued

for the plaintiff for possession of the property. A variety of

motions were filed by both sides, including the defendants'

motion for relief from the judgment, pursuant to Mass. R.

Civ. P. 60 (b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), which the Housing Court

judge denied on November 3, 2021.

On January 7, 2022, the defendants filed a timely notice of

appeal from the appeal bond order in the Housing Court, and then

petitioned a single justice of this court for relief from that

order and for a stay of execution of the eviction. The matter

was remanded to the Housing Court, and ultimately, the

defendants were ordered to comply with the appeal bond. When

the defendants failed to pay use and occupancy fees, a judge of

the Housing Court allowed the plaintiff's motion to strike the

defendants' appeal. No notice of appeal from that allowance was

filed within the required thirty-day time period. Rather, the

defendant filed an emergency motion to stay eviction in the

1 The defendants include Karen Merritt as well as several other occupants of the property. None of the other defendants are parties to this appeal.

2 Housing Court and, on denial, sought a stay of execution,

pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6, as appearing in 494 Mass. 1601

(2024), from a single justice of this court. In the order

denying relief, dated October 4, 2024, the single justice

determined that the defendant failed to appeal the dismissal of

the underlying appeal (and that the time to file had passed) and

that the defendant did not show a likelihood of success on the

merits. On the same date, the single justice denied the

defendant's motion for reconsideration, which was also filed on

October 4, 2024.

Discussion. On appeal, the defendant offers several

reasons why the single justice erred in denying her motion to

stay the execution including lack of jurisdiction, fraud in the

foreclosure sale, and various deficiencies in the summary

process action. These claims have been pressed by the defendant

in a variety of different ways. On several occasions a single

justice of this court has stated that this appeal is limited to

reviewing the denial of the defendant's emergency motion to stay

execution of the eviction proceedings. This appeal is not an

occasion for plenary review of any judgments or rulings in the

Housing Court.

As to this appeal, which again is limited to reviewing the

single justice's order denying the defendant's emergency motion

to stay the execution of the eviction, the matter is moot

3 because on October 10, 2024, execution was levied, and the

defendant no longer occupies the property. See Kahyaoglu v.

Sillari Enters. LLC, 493 Mass. 1005, 1005 (2023); Elgbe v. Pine

St. Inn, Inc./Paul Sullivan Hous., 441 Mass. 1009, 1009 (2004).

"It is the general rule that courts decide only actual

controversies. We follow that rule, and normally do not decide

moot cases." Boston Herald, Inc. v. Superior Court Dep't of the

Trial Court, 421 Mass. 502, 504 (1995). "[L]itigation is

considered moot when the party who claimed to be aggrieved

ceases to have a personal stake in its outcome[, and] a court

can order no further effective relief" (quotations and citations

omitted). Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 481

Mass. 810, 816-817 (2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 858 (2020).

Here, any claim for possession is now moot as the defendant is

no longer in possession of the property. Even if the appeal

were not moot, we see no error of law or abuse of discretion in

the single justice's denial of the emergency order as the

defendant failed to present, among other requirements, any

4 arguments suggesting the likelihood of success on the merits.

See Property Acquisition Group, LLC v. Ivester, 95 Mass. App.

Ct. 170, 180 (2019).2

Single justice orders dated October 4, 2024, affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, Walsh & Hodgens, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: October 14, 2025.

2 We decline the invitation by the plaintiff to award appellate attorney's fees and costs.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.