MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
In this postforeclosure action, the defendants, proceeding pro se, appeal from orders granting the motion of U.S Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) to recover the appeal bond and denying the defendants’ motions to vacate the judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (4) and 60 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 828 (1974). We affirm.
Background. “We summarize the undisputed facts drawn from the summary judgment record; to the extent the record includes disputed evidence, we consider that evidence in the light most favorable to [the nonmoving party].” Cesso v. Todd, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 131, 132 (2017), citing Ritter v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., 439 Mass. 214, 215 (2003). The defendants’ efforts have a long history, and we assume familiarity with the prior cases decided by this court.
4
In short, the defendants defaulted on their obligations under a note and mortgage on their Sutton home; ultimately, U.S. Bank, which held the mortgage and note, sold the home in foreclosure. See U.S. Bank Natl Assn v. Mistovich, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2020).
On March 10, 2021, U.S. Bank moved to recover the appeal bond. The defendants opposed that motion and again moved pursuant to rules 60 (b) (4) and 60 (b) (6) to vacate the Housing Court judges order granting U.S. Bank summary judgment. A judge denied the motion on April 20, 2021, because “all issues have been litigated in this Court and the Appeals Court and therefore Plaintiff has the right to rely on the finality of the case.” The judge also allowed U.S. Banks motion to recover the bond.
Discussion. The defendants raise eleven claims that can best be summarized as follows. They contend that the summary process judgment is void because the Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and failed to provide due process of law. They further claim that the assignment chain to U.S. Bank was defective, issues of material fact were resolved against them at summary judgment, and that findings of fact were “clearly erroneous” and not supported by the evidence. The defendants argue that these errors require that the appeal bond be returned to them. We are unpersuaded.
“A judgment is void if the court from which it issues lacked jurisdiction over the parties, lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failed to provide due process of law.” Harris v. Sannella, 400 Mass. 392, 395 (1987). “Only in the rare instance of a clear usurpation of power will a judgment be rendered void.” Id., quoting Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys.¸ 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972). See rule 60 (b) (4).
“[T]o prevail under rule 60 (b) (6), the party must show that such relief would be just and also that relief is not available under rule 60 (b) (1) - (5).” Bird v. Ross, 393 Mass. 789, 791 (1985), citing Chavoor v. Lewis, 383 Mass. 801, 805-806 (1981). “Litigants, lawyers, and courts are entitled to finality when cases go to judgment, and the use of rule 60 (b) (6), therefore, has extremely narrow and meagre scope.” Tibbitts v. Wisniewski, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 729, 732 (1989).
Neither rule 60 (b) (4) nor rule 60 (b) (6) affords relief in this case. The summary process judgment was not void. The plaintiffs predecessor was adjudicated the holder of the note and mortgage, and therefore could bring the action, which was properly brought in the Housing Court. See G. L. c. 185C, § 3; Federal Natl Mtge. Assn v. Rego, 474 Mass. 329, 338 (2016) (“as a jurisdictional matter, the Housing Court has broad authority to resolve ․ all ‘housing problems’ ”). The parties conclusively litigated the alleged invalidity of the underlying note, mortgage, and assignment. See note 3, supra. Notwithstanding the defendants’ claim of clearly erroneous findings without support in the record, none of these arguments fits within the narrow definition of a void judgment pursuant to rule 60 (b) (4). And the defendants have failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would warrant relief pursuant to rule 60 (b) (6). Furthermore, because these claims were disposed of in prior actions, res judicata bars the defendants from relitigating them. See DeGiacomo v. Quincy, 476 Mass. 38, 41-42 (2016), and cases cited. “The doctrine of res judicata is based on ‘[c]onsiderations of fairness and the requirements of efficient judicial administration,’ which ‘dictate that an opposing party in a particular action as well as the court is entitled to be free from attempts to relitigate the same claim’ ” (citation omitted). Id. at 41.
As to the appeal bond, a plaintiff who is successful in a summary process action is entitled to recover the bond when final judgment enters. See G. L. c. 239, §§ 5, 6. Here, the decision of this court affirming the judgment in favor of U.S. Bank and the orders denying postjudgment relief issued on June 3, 2020. The Supreme Judicial Court subsequently denied the defendants’ application for further appellant review. U.S. Bank sought to recover the appeal bond only after it had levied upon the execution and possessed the property. There was no error in allowing the motion to recover the bond.
5
Order denying motions to vacate judgment affirmed.
Order allowing motion to recover appeal bond affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
4
. See, e.g., U.S. Bank Natl Assn v. Mistovich, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2020); Mistovich v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 1105 (2017); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mistovich, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (2014).
5
. We address the merits of each claim, but do not necessarily analyze each argument advanced in support of those claims. “To the extent that we have not specifically addressed other points made ․ in [the defendants’] brief[s], they ‘have not been overlooked. We find nothing in them that requires discussion.’ ” Commonwealth v. Brown, 479 Mass. 163, 168 n.3 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).