Title: Galarza v. Barroso

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13205 
 
CHRISTINA GALARZA  vs.  CHRISTOPHER BARROSO & another.1 
 
 
February 4, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Christina Galarza, appeals from a judgment 
of a single justice of this court denying her petition pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.  
 
Pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5 (f), Galarza sought review by 
an Appeals Court single justice of an order of a Housing Court 
judge denying her motion to waive the appeal bond in connection 
with her appeal from an adverse judgment in an underlying 
summary process action.  The Appeals Court single justice 
affirmed the judge's refusal to waive the appeal bond, and 
Galarza thereafter filed her G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition.  A 
single justice of this court denied the petition, noting that 
Galarza had an adequate alternative remedy:  she could have 
refused to pay the bond, suffered the dismissal of the summary 
process appeal, and then appealed from the order of dismissal to 
the Appeals Court on the bond issue.  See Matter of an Appeal 
Bond (No. 1), 428 Mass. 1013 (1998). 
 
Galarza has now filed what appears to have been intended as 
a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), even though she is not 
challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  It is 
clear from what she has filed that she is not entitled to the 
relief she is currently seeking.  According to Galarza, the 
appeal bond has since been paid through a "personal loan."  She 
is currently asking us to review the denial of her motion to 
 
 
1 Katrina Pimentel. 
2 
 
waive the bond anyway, so that she can immediately recoup the 
bond amount and repay the loan now instead of later.  There is 
no right to have that kind of review.  If Galarza is successful 
in her appeal in the underlying summary process action, the 
amount she has posted will be returned to her at that time.  But 
having made the choice to post the bond, rather than exercise 
her right to refuse to post a bond and follow the procedure 
outlined in Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 1), 428 Mass. at 1013, 
she is not entitled to return of the bond before prevailing on 
her appeal.  One who is required to post a bond, who moves 
unsuccessfully in the trial court to have the bond waived, and 
who then unsuccessfully challenges the trial court's adverse 
ruling via the statutorily prescribed procedure (in this case, 
an appeal to a single justice of the Appeals Court, see G. L. 
c. 239, § 5 [f]), cannot pay the bond yet continue to litigate 
the matter as a matter of right in this court under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
Christina Galarza, pro se.