Kupperstein v. Baker
| Decision Date | 21 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 20-11868-FDS |
| Parties | DONALD C. KUPPERSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES D. BAKER, in his official capacity as Governor of Massachusetts; RICHARD J. MCMAHON; MARYLOU SUDDERS, Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services; DANIEL TSAI, Director of the Office of Medicaid; RHONDA MACLEOD; and AUSTIN MCHOUL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
DONALD C. KUPPERSTEIN, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES D. BAKER,
in his official capacity as Governor of Massachusetts;
RICHARD J. MCMAHON;
MARYLOU SUDDERS, Secretary of the Executive
Office of Health and Human Services;
DANIEL TSAI, Director of the Office of Medicaid;
RHONDA MACLEOD; and AUSTIN MCHOUL, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 20-11868-FDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
July 21, 2021
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
SAYLOR, C.J.
This action arises out of a dispute that has been the subject of at least three other court proceedings. Plaintiff Donald C. Kupperstein, an attorney proceeding pro se, asserts claims against defendants Charles D. Baker, Governor of Massachusetts; Richard J. McMahon, Associate Justice of the Probate and Family Court; Marylou Sudders, Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services; Daniel Tsai, Assistant Secretary for MassHealth and Director of the Office of Medicaid; Rhonda MacLeod, a revenue manager at University of Massachusetts Medical School; and Austin McHoul, an attorney. The amended complaint purports to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3) for violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights and for various state-law torts.
The underlying facts are set forth in detail in several other judicial opinions, including In
Page 2
re Kupperstein, 943 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2019) ("Kupperstein I") and In re Kupperstein, 994 F.3d 673 (1st Cir. 2021), petition for cert. filed ("Kupperstein II").1 As described by the First Circuit, the basic facts are as follows.
Donald Kupperstein, "with the help of his comrade, Thomas Sheedy, improperly entangled himself with a piece of real property on Reservoir Street in Norton, Massachusetts[,] and lined his pockets with rents from various tenants he installed." 994 F.3d at 674. "Kupperstein . . . and Sheedy duped the only child of Fred Kuhn, the property's owner, after Kuhn's death, into selling the property for a 'pittance.'" Id. at 674 n.1. "That property belonged to the estate of Fred Kuhn . . . and that estate owed a debt to the Massachusetts Office of Health and Human Services, better known as 'MassHealth.'" Id. at 675. "Ultimately, the probate court voided the property's transfer (so that Kupperstein and Sheedy had no claim to it) and ordered the duo to pay to MassHealth 'any and all' rents collected from the property." Id. "Kupperstein and Sheedy disregarded the probate court's order and continued to rent the property for their own gain." Id.
Kupperstein subsequently filed a bankruptcy petition in an effort to retain the property and avoid the contempt sanctions, which was not successful. Id. at 675-76. As of November 2019, "[Kupperstein had] defied seven state court orders, four arrest warrants, and a mountain of contempt sanctions." Kupperstein I, 943 F.3d at 15.
Kupperstein has now filed suit against the governor, a justice of the Probate and Family Court, and various other state officials and a private attorney. Defendants have filed three
Page 3
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint, all contending that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants McHoul and MacLeod also contend that the claims against them are barred by issue preclusion.
For the reasons stated below, defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted.
I. Background
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the amended complaint, and from documents referred to by the amended complaint or attached to it.2
A. Parties
Donald C. Kupperstein is an attorney who is licensed to practice in Massachusetts. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14).
Charles D. Baker is the Governor of Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 15). Richard J. McMahon is an Associate Justice of Bristol County Probate and Family Court (the "Probate Court"). (Id. ¶ 16). Marylou Sudders is the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. (Id. ¶ 17). Daniel Tsai is the Assistant Secretary for MassHealth and the Director of the Office of Medicaid. (Id. at 1; id. ¶ 18). Rhonda MacLeod is a revenue manager at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. (Id. ¶ 19). Austin McHoul is an attorney. (Id. ¶ 35).
Page 4
B. Factual Background
In 2009, Fred W. Kuhn began accepting Medicaid payments from the Executive Office of Health and Human Services ("EOHHS"). (Id. ¶ 31). It was not reimbursed for those payments. At some point, to secure the debt, totaling $191,746.79, it recorded a lien on a property of his located at 346 Reservoir Street in Norton, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 50, 58, 60-61, 115, 233).
On September 17, 2013, Kuhn passed away. (Id. ¶ 32). His daughter, Carol Thibodeau, became the personal representative of his estate. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 39(a), 39(b)). She retained an attorney, Austin McHoul, to represent the estate in probate proceedings in the Probate Court. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 162).3 Upon probate of the will, which the court approved on March 27, 2014, Thibodeau became the owner of the Reservoir Street property. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 40, 50).
On November 21, 2014, Thibodeau conveyed the property to Thomas Sheedy. (Id. ¶¶ 65, 69). Thibodeau received "less than $100" and a "tax redemption of $3,379.13" in exchange for the property. Kupperstein I, 943 F.3d at 16. Kupperstein prepared, notarized, and recorded the deed, which listed the "redemption information and [other] consideration" on it. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 64, 66, 73-74).
According to the amended complaint, Kupperstein loaned Sheedy money to pay for services, labor, and materials for improvements to the property. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 91). On November 22, 2014, to secure the loan, he recorded a mechanics lien against the property. (Id. ¶¶ 92-93, 185).
On June 4, 2015, a prospective buyer, Claire Boyle, signed an agreement to purchase the property. (Id. ¶ 87). However, "prior to June 5, 2015," McHoul told Clark, her attorney, that
Page 5
Sheedy's title to the property was "no good," and Boyle, through Clark, repudiated the agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 85-87).4
On July 7, 2015, EOHHS filed a verified complaint against Kupperstein, among others, in Suffolk Superior Court. (Id. ¶¶ 97-98). The complaint appears to allege that Tsai and Sudders were responsible for the filing of that complaint, and its contents, because of their positions as Assistant Secretary for MassHealth, and Secretary of the EOHHS, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18, 214; id. ¶ 25 (noting that "the Terms 'DMA', 'EOHHS' and 'MassHealth' refer to Scudders [sic] and Tsai")). MacLeod verified the complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 98-103). It contended that the transfer of the property to Sheedy was invalid because of the EOHHS lien and because a notice of claim had been filed against the estate. (Id. ¶ 217).
According to the amended complaint, on April 20, 2016, the Superior Court ruled that EOHHS held a valid lien on the property, but left the sale intact, and dismissed a count of fraud. (Id. ¶ 5). In addition, it entered judgment in Kupperstein's favor on counts seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that Thibodeau's transfer of the property was "unenforceable because it was done without authorization from the Probate Court"; (2) "rescission of the deed transferring the Property to Sheedy [] on th[at] same ground," (McHoul Supp. Mem., Ex. 1 ("Apr. 20, 2016 Order") at 4); and (3) treble damages pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 118E. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 109, 111, 219; see also Apr. 20, 2016 Order at 4). Nevertheless, the Court noted that "Thibodeau's sale to Sheedy notwithstanding, the Property may still be subject to a petition in Probate Court seeking a license to sell the Property to satisfy the Estate's debt to HHS, and this court can make no ruling as to the Property's status in that regard." (Apr. 20, 2016 Order at 5 n.3
Page 6
(noting that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 202, § 20 "defin[es] the conditions under which real property of an estate that has been sold by an heir or devisee may be subject to sale in order to satisfy the debts of an estate")).
On May 17, 2016, EOHHS filed a petition against the estate in the probate proceedings in the Probate Court seeking payment or a forced sale of the property to satisfy Kuhn's debt. (Am. Compl. ¶ 115). Kupperstein filed an objection to the petition on the grounds that he was an interested party. (Id. ¶ 241). On November 29, 2016, Judge McMahon, an associate justice of that court, ruled that the transfer of the property to Sheedy was invalid and that the property was still part of Kuhn's estate. (Id. ¶ 8; see also McHoul's Supp. Mem., Ex. 2 ("Nov. 29, 2016 Order")). Among other things, Judge McMahon ordered that "[n]either [] Sheedy nor [] Kupperstein . . . shall execute or record any further documents concerning [the property] without further order of this Court" and that "[a]ny and all rents received by . . . Kupperstein . . . prior to the date of this Order shall be made payable to EOHHS." (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 146, 244).5 The decision noted that "The Objector and the Respondent, Donald C. Kupperstein, did not appear for the hearing [on the motion for summary judgment]," but nevertheless cited to several of Kupperstein's arguments. (Nov. 29, 2016 Order at 1, 3, 4).
At some point, it appears that EOHHS filed a complaint for contempt against Kupperstein. (Am. Compl. ¶ 148; id. at 46 (attaching an undated complaint for civil contempt filed by EOHHS)). The complaint for civil contempt claimed that an exhibit attached to it—which is not attached to the amended complaint—"show[ed] monthly rent and late fees collected
Page 7
by [Kupperstein], totaling $33,150 due to EOHHS." (Id. at 46).6 On August 4, 2017, "after [a] hearing," Judge McMahon ruled that Kupperstein was in contempt of court for "willfully . . . neglect[ing] and refus[ing] to pay any and all rents received from the subject premises to plaintiff in the amount of $33,150.00" and ordered that he must "pay [the estate] the sum of $33,150.00 . . . within [] 60 days of the date of this order." (See Am. Compl. at 44-45 (attaching that Aug. 4, 2017 order to the complaint)).
On...
To continue reading
Request your trial