Case Title: Perry v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12832

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12832 
 
DONALD PERRY  vs.  U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., trustee.1 
 
 
May 26, 2020. 
 
 
Summary Process, Appeal.  Practice, Civil, Summary process, 
Appeal, Bond.  Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of 
inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Donald Perry (petitioner) filed a petition in the county 
court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  He sought review of an 
order of a Housing Court judge denying his motion for waiver of 
an appeal bond, setting the bond, and ordering payment of use 
and occupancy during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal 
from an adverse summary process judgment.  See G. L. c. 239, 
§§ 5, 6.  A single justice of this court denied the petition.  
We affirm. 
 
 
A single justice properly denies relief under G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, "where there are [other] adequate and effective routes 
. . . by which the petitioning party may seek relief."  Greco v. 
Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996).  In this case, 
the petitioner sought and received review of the Housing Court 
judge's order from a single justice of the Appeals Court, 
pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5.  To the extent the petitioner 
wished further to challenge the order, he could have "refuse[d] 
to pay the bond, suffer[ed] the dismissal of [his] summary 
process appeal, and then appeal[ed] to the Appeals Court (on the 
limited bond issue) from the order of dismissal."  Matter of an 
Appeal Bond (No. 1), 428 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1998) (collecting 
cases).  The petitioner also could have –- as he did here –- pay 
the bond and proceed with his direct appeal from the summary 
                     
 
1 For LSF9 Master Participation Trust. 
2 
 
 
 
 
process judgment in the Appeals Court.  He is free to raise his 
claims concerning the bond and the use and occupancy payments in 
that proceeding.  See generally Cambridge Street Realty, LLC v. 
Stewart, 481 Mass. 121, 126 (2018) (considering merit of both 
summary process judgment and appeal bond order). 
 
 
The single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion 
in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Donald Perry, pro se. 
 
Jason MacKeen for the respondent.