Case Title: Scott v. WM Oak Grove Village, LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13187

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-12-15T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13187 
 
ALAN SCOTT  vs.  WM OAK GROVE VILLAGE, LLC. 
 
 
December 15, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Alan Scott appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  We affirm the judgment. 
 
Scott, along with another person, was a defendant in a 
summary process action commenced in the Housing Court by WM Oak 
Grove Village, LLC (landlord).  After a trial, a judge in that 
court awarded possession to the landlord.  Scott appealed from 
the judgment.  The trial judge set an appeal bond and ordered 
Scott to make use and occupancy payments.  Scott sought review 
of that order in the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 239, 
§ 5 (f).  A single justice of the Appeals Court affirmed the 
appeal bond and reduced the amount of the use and occupancy 
payments.  Scott then filed a motion to stay the single 
justice's order, which the single justice denied.  His G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petition ensued.  A single justice of this court 
treated the petition as one seeking relief from the affirmance 
of the appeal bond and, with that understanding, correctly 
denied relief on the ground that Scott had an adequate 
alternative remedy.  See Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 1), 428 
Mass. 1013, 1013 (1998). 
 
 
The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a party 
challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set 
forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot 
adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment 
in the trial court or by other available means."  However, rule 
2 
 
2:21 does not apply here, where the summary process case has 
gone to final judgment and Scott's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition 
did not challenge any interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  
Nonetheless, on the record before us, it is clear that Scott is 
not entitled to extraordinary relief. 
 
 
Scott argues that the single justice mistakenly understood 
his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition to be seeking relief from the 
decision of the single justice of the Appeals Court on the 
appeal bond and use and occupancy payments.  In fact, Scott 
argues, his petition sought only a stay of execution of the 
judgment of the Housing Court while his appeal from the judgment 
is pending.  We accept that to be true.  Nevertheless, relief 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was not necessary.  Although the 
Housing Court docket indicates that Scott sought a stay of 
execution in that court, it does not appear in the record, or 
from our independent review of the Appeals Court docket, that he 
sought such a stay from the Appeals Court.1,2  See Mass. R. A. 
P. 6 (a) (1), as appearing in481 Mass. 1608 (2019) (motion for 
stay pending appeal in civil case must be made in lower court in 
first instance, but may then be made to appellate court or 
single justice).  Because Scott had this alternative means to 
seek a stay pending appeal, relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was 
properly denied.  Linardon v. Boston Hous. Auth., 487 Mass. 
1006, 1007 (2021). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Alan Scott, pro se. 
 
 
1 The record shows that Scott filed an "emergency motion to 
stay single justice order" after the single justice of the 
Appeals Court issued her decision.  That motion appears to have 
sought a stay only of the single justice's order that he make 
use and occupancy payments, not a stay of execution of the 
underlying Housing Court judgment pending appeal. 
 
 
2 The Housing Court docket indicates that an execution has 
issued, but the record does not show whether the landlord has 
actually effected the execution and taken possession of the 
premises.  If the landlord has not already carried out the 
execution, we trust that it will give Scott a reasonable time 
(we suggest not less than fourteen days from the date of this 
opinion) to request a stay pending appeal from the Appeals Court 
before doing so.