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
23-P-405
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE REDSTONE COURT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
vs.
XIULIN LIU.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Xiulin Liu, the defendant in the underlying Superior Court
action, appeals from an order declaring her a vexatious litigant
and prohibiting her "from filing any further pleadings in this
matter" without approval of the Regional Administrative Justice
of the Superior Court (RAJ). We affirm.
The plaintiff, an organization of unit owners of a
condominium, brought this civil action to establish and enforce
a lien for unpaid common expenses owed by the defendant, and
determine the priority of the lien. After the defendant failed
to file an answer or responsive pleading, a default judgment
entered against her in the Superior Court. The defendant filed
a notice of appeal and a motion to vacate, but then informed the
Superior Court that she refused to order transcripts. On the
plaintiff's motion, the appeal was dismissed. The defendant
filed at least six motions to vacate or reconsider the judgment,
all of which were denied.
In a July 8, 2022 order denying one of those motions, the
Superior Court judge cautioned: "[The d]efendant is warned that
if she files any further motion to vacate or motion for
reconsideration, the court will strongly consider awarding [the]
plaintiff it[s] attorney's fees in having to oppose the motion,
and/or take steps to have [the] defendant declared a vexatious
litigant." Ten days later, the defendant filed another notice
of appeal and a notice of submission of transcripts. The judge
dismissed that appeal, stating, "[the defendant] cannot restart
the clock on the filing of a notice of appeal by persistently
filing new motions to vacate judgment."
The plaintiff's motion to dismiss that appeal requested
that the defendant be designated as a vexatious litigant, be
prohibited from filing further motions in the case, and pay the
plaintiff's attorney's fees. After a hearing, on December 27,
2022, the judge allowed the plaintiff's motion "to a limited
extent." The judge ordered that the defendant was "declared
. . . a vexatious litigant for purposes of this case only" and
was prohibited from further filings in the case without prior
screening and approval by the RAJ. The judge denied the
plaintiff's request for attorney's fees due to the defendant's
2
pro se status. With the permission of the RAJ, the defendant
appealed from the order. That appeal is now before us. 1
Although the defendant is appealing from the December 27,
2022 order, neither her principal brief nor her reply brief
mentions that order or argues why it was wrong. Instead, the
defendant's brief argues that the default judgment should be
vacated, asserting, "All the five judgments are wrong, they know
that they can't close the case, just torture me to give up this
case. I never give up my case[.] I continue to contact the
court management and file motions." Because the defendant's
brief does not set forth any legal argument as to why the
December 27, 2022 order was wrong, she has not shown any basis
for relief from that order. See Cooper v. CVS Pharmacy, 450
Mass. 1024, 1025 (2008); Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as
appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019).
After having warned the defendant, the judge did not abuse
her discretion by entering the order declaring the defendant a
vexatious litigant and requiring her to seek approval from the
1 A single justice of this court accepted the defendant's brief
and appendix for filing with the caveat that "this order should
not be construed as a waiver of the requirements to provide
appropriate appellate argument and a record appendix sufficient
to enable appellate review; and to rely only on materials that
were part of the record below related to the issues on appeal."
The defendant also moved to file a nonconforming reply brief.
That brief was accepted for filing. By accepting it, we do not
intimate that it meets the requirements of the Massachusetts
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3
RAJ before filing additional pleadings. See Bishay v. Superior
Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 487 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2021).
See also State Realty Co. of Boston v. MacNeil, 341 Mass. 123,
124 (1960). Considering the defendant's history of filing
repetitive motions and her assertions on appeal, the limitations
imposed by that order did not fall outside the range of
reasonable alternatives. See L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass.
169, 185 n.27 (2014). 2
Order dated December 27,
2022, affirmed.
By the Court (Rubin,
Ditkoff & Grant, JJ. 3),
Assistant Clerk
Entered: March 4, 2024.
2 The plaintiff's request for attorney's fees as a sanction for a
frivolous appeal is denied.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
4