Opinion
No. 12–P–238.
2013-04-8
Michael DEFEUDIS v. AUCTION.COM & others.
By the Court (GRASSO, TRAINOR & CARHART, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The pro se plaintiff, Michael DeFeudis, appeals from a Superior Court judge's dismissal of his complaint, contempt complaint, and motion to add and enjoin defendants. We affirm.
Discussion. We recite the relevant facts as found in the supplemental appendix. DeFeudis resides at 55 Robin Hill Road in Holliston. Steven Karlgren owned the property at the time DeFeudis brought his claims in the Superior Court. Although DeFeudis purports to bring this action on Karlgren's behalf, nothing in the records supports the notion that Karlgren consents or wishes to be a party to DeFeudis's complaints or this appeal.
DeFeudis, while residing at the Holliston property, was unable to make the monthly mortgage payments. Thus, the property was foreclosed upon by the lender, IndyMac. DeFeudis's complaint pertains to the actions taken by IndyMac, not the named defendants, in relation to the foreclosure process. The defendants have no interest in the property other than the fact that Auction.com was hired by IndyMac to place the property online for auction and to solicit bids. On September 8, 2011, DeFeudis filed a complaint to enjoin Auction.com from in any way facilitating transfer of the property title. A short order of notice was issued with a return date of September 14. The defendants were not served and thus did not appear at the hearing. On September 14, 2011, the court issued a temporary restraining preventing any transfer of the property. On September 28, 2011, a Superior Court judge issued the following order: “After hearing for which the defendants were notified but did not appear, the defendants are preliminarily enjoined from taking any steps to transfer or perfect title to 55 Robin Hill Road, Holliston.”
We note that the foreclosure sale has already occurred.
The docket sheet shows a return of service on all three defendants indicating “signed green card and return receipt attached.” This representation that the defendants had been served before the hearing is in direct contravention to the sworn affidavits of Skrzynski, Kinder, and the chief legal officer of Auction.com, who denied, under oath, that they had been served prior to the hearing.
On September 28, 2011, DeFeudis filed a complaint for contempt alleging that the defendants violated the terms of the restraining order and preliminary injunction. On October 12, 2011, the defendants filed an emergency motion to dismiss the contempt complaint, and filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on October 24, 2011. DeFeudis filed a motion to add and enjoin defendants, which the court treated as an opposition motion to the defendants motion to dismiss.
On November 16, 2001, DeFeudis's initial complaint was dismissed. In her ruling, the motion judge noted that the action was brought to prevent a sale of 55 Robin Hill Road after foreclosure sale; that DeFeudis has no authority to name Kalgren, the former owner, as a party; and that DeFeudis is attempting to prevent any future sale of the property by the owner from the foreclosure sale. The judge's findings and order are amply supported by the record. See Iannachino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008).
Judgments affirmed.