Daniel Peristere v. Wms Properties, LLC.

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

25-P-53

DANIEL PERISTERE

vs.

WMS PROPERTIES, LLC.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, WMS Properties, LLC, brought a summary

process action against the plaintiff, Daniel Peristere, in the

Housing Court for possession of a residential property (the

property). After a trial, a jury granted possession of the

property to the defendant in February 2019. Although the

plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which this court docketed,

it was dismissed. On October 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed a

complaint in the Superior Court seeking to remove the underlying

Housing Court summary process matter to the Superior Court. A

judge of the Superior Court dismissed that complaint on the

grounds that there was no authority to remove a Housing Court
summary process action to the Superior Court. The plaintiff

appealed. We affirm.

The parties are familiar with the facts and extensive

procedural history in this case. Accordingly, we do not repeat

that information here.

Discussion. "[A] court's sua sponte motion to dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction is analogous to a party's

motion to dismiss under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (1) or (6), 365

Mass. 754 (1974)." Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 460 Mass. 762, 764

(2011). "We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo,

accepting as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the

complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the

plaintiff's favor, and determining whether allegations plausibly

suggest that the plaintiff is entitled to relief." Lanier v.

President & Fellows of Harvard College, 490 Mass. 37, 43 (2022).

The plaintiff argues that the case must be removed to the

Superior Court as a matter of right because the Housing Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree.

The Housing Court has "jurisdiction to hear summary process

complaints, in which the owner of a housing unit seeks to evict

the occupant of that unit and recover possession." Federal

Nat'l Mtge. Ass'n v. Rego, 474 Mass. 329, 338 (2016). See G. L.

2
c. 185C, § 3.1 In his filings in the original summary process

action, the plaintiff acknowledged that this is a summary

process proceeding. Hence, the Housing Court had subject matter

jurisdiction to hear this case. See Federal Nat'l Mtge. Ass'n,

supra.

The judge dismissed the complaint because "there is no

statute or rule that allows the plaintiff to unilaterally and

without authorization 'remove' a Housing Court eviction case to

the Superior Court." We agree. "[H]earing eviction actions is

an express and essential Housing Court function," and the judge

properly dismissed the complaint on these grounds. Cambridge

St. Realty, LLC v. Stewart, 481 Mass. 121, 127 (2018).2

1 "[T]he Housing Court [also] has broad authority to resolve
civil claims and counterclaims that relate 'directly or
indirectly' to 'the health, safety, or welfare, of any occupant
of any place used . . . as a place of human habitation,' as well
as the authority to resolve all 'housing problems, including all
contract and tort actions which affect the health, safety and
welfare of the occupants or owners' of such housing." Federal
Nat'l Mtge. Ass'n, 474 Mass. at 338, quoting G. L. c. 185C, § 3.

2 To the extent that we do not discuss other arguments made
by the defendant, they have not been overlooked. "We find
nothing in them that requires discussion." Commonwealth v.
Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).

3
The defendant's request for fees is denied.

Judgment of dismissal
affirmed.

By the Court (Desmond, Tan &
Wood, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: April 17, 2026.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

4