120 N.E.3d 297
Mass.2019Background
- Multiple self-represented tenants in Housing Court sought superintendence relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, alleging denial of indigency-based fee waivers for audio recordings, delayed access to recordings, and failures to provide disability accommodations.
- Petitioners sought broad remedies (automatic free recordings for indigents, halting executions, rehearings, reimbursement, and policy directives); Attorney General moved to dismiss, arguing appellate remedies existed and petition failed to name lower-court parties.
- A single justice dismissed the G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition without hearing; petitioners appealed.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal (no abuse of discretion), but issued guidance clarifying (1) indigent fee-waiver procedure under G. L. c. 261 §§27A–27G; (2) treatment of audio-recording costs as "extra costs" and criteria for waivers; and (3) courts' obligation to provide reasonable accommodations under MERA and state constitutional provisions.
- Court emphasized the fast, complex timeline of summary process evictions, the high rate of unrepresented tenants, and the practical importance of timely decisions on indigency and accommodations to avoid prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate remedy under G. L. c. 211, § 3 for alleged systemic denials of recording waivers and accommodations | Petitioners asked SJC superintendence to order systemic relief (free recordings, rehearings, policy changes) | AG/Housing Court: claims were subject to ordinary appellate or other statutory remedies; petition defective for not naming lower-court parties | SJC: petition properly dismissed; appellants had adequate alternative remedies (appeal, separate actions); no abuse of discretion in dismissal |
| Procedure for indigency fee waivers under G. L. c. 261 §§27A–27C | Petitioners: clerks/judges improperly required public disclosure and denied waivers for recordings | Housing Court: followed practice treating audio recordings as "extra costs" and requiring judge review when affidavit incomplete or raises questions | SJC: clarified statute — clerks must grant regular, complete affidavits for normal fees forthwith; if affidavit raises significant questions or seeks extra costs, refer to judge; hearings must occur within five days; keep affidavits confidential and issue findings promptly |
| Whether cost of audio recordings is a "normal" or "extra" cost under G. L. c. 261 §27A | Petitioners: recording costs should be waived as necessary for appeal/hearing prep | Housing Court: recordings are extra costs requiring judge approval for waiver | SJC: recordings are "extra costs" consistent with other trial courts, but judges must waive them without hearing when requester is indigent and recording is reasonably necessary for effective prosecution, defense, or appeal (often when relevant to upcoming hearing or nonfrivolous appeal) |
| Duty to provide reasonable accommodations to litigants with disabilities | Petitioners: court failed to provide accommodations, impairing ability to participate and increasing need for recordings | Housing Court: (implicit) denials appropriate given circumstances or operational limits | SJC: courts must provide reasonable, individualized accommodations under MERA and state constitution; hearings to resolve disputes about accommodations should be held (preferably pretrial) and judges must make findings adequate for appellate review; avoid unnecessary public disclosure of sensitive info |
Key Cases Cited
- Fogarty v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 103 (establishes standard of review for single-justice decisions)
- McDonough, petitioner, 457 Mass. 512 (explains G. L. c. 211, § 3 superintendence relief standard and duty to accommodate under MERA)
- Reade v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 472 Mass. 573 (interpreting administration of indigent court costs statute)
- Fafard v. Lincoln Pharmacy of Milford, Inc., 439 Mass. 512 (describes summary process as statutory)
- Cambridge St. Realty, LLC v. Stewart, 481 Mass. 121 (notice-to-quit and related summary process principles)
- Commonwealth v. Lockley, 381 Mass. 156 (standard for waiver of "extra" costs: reasonably necessary for adequate defense)
- Commonwealth v. Salazar, 481 Mass. 105 (consideration of cost versus value in determining necessity of an expense)