Title: Cummins Realty Trust v. O'Neill

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13452 
 
CUMMINS REALTY TRUST  vs.  FRANK O'NEILL. 
 
 
October 13, 2023. 
 
 
Summary Process, Appeal.  Practice, Civil, Summary process.  
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
The petitioner, Frank O'Neill, filed a petition in the 
county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking relief from 
an order of the Housing Court requiring him to make use and 
occupancy payments.  A single justice of this court denied the 
petition, and O'Neill appealed.  We affirm. 
 
Background.  On December 21, 2022, O'Neill filed a timely 
notice of appeal from the entry of final judgment in favor of  
Cummins Realty Trust in a summary process action.  A judge in 
the Housing Court granted O'Neill's motion to waive the appeal 
bond and ordered him to pay monthly use and occupancy payments 
in the amount of $1,200 during the pendency of his appeal.  
O'Neill failed to make any such payments. 
 
O'Neill subsequently sought interlocutory review of the use 
and occupancy order before a single justice of the Appeals 
Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5 (f).  The single justice 
affirmed.  Thereafter, the Housing Court ordered O'Neill to 
tender three months of outstanding use and occupancy payments by 
May 16, 2023, warning that failure to comply would result in the 
dismissal of his substantive appeal from the judgment in the 
summary process action.  On the same date, O'Neill filed the 
instant petition in the county court, seeking a reduction in the 
monthly use and occupancy payments from $1,200 to one hundred 
dollars.  That petition was denied. 
 
2 
 
 
 
On May 16, 2023, the deadline for tendering the outstanding 
use and occupancy payments, O'Neill filed a motion in the county 
court requesting a ten-day extension of the deadline either to 
"explore" appealing from the use and occupancy order in the 
Federal District Court or to finish moving out of the residence.  
The single justice denied the motion, and this appeal followed. 
 
Discussion.  A single justice properly denies relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, "where the petitioning party has or had 
adequate and effective avenues other than G. L. c. 211, § 3, by 
which to seek and obtain the requested relief" (citation 
omitted).  Marnerakis v. Phillips, Silver, Talman, Aframe & 
Sinrich, P.C., 445 Mass. 1027, 1027 (2006).  Here, the 
petitioner sought review of the use and occupancy order from a 
single justice of the Appeals Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 239, 
§ 5 (f).  He was "not entitled as of right to an additional 
layer of review of the . . . use and occupancy order[] in this 
court."  Bigelow v. Massachusetts Courts Promulgator of Official 
Forms, 484 Mass. 1056, 1057 (2020).  Accordingly, the single 
justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Frank O'Neill, pro se. 
 
Robert D. Russo & Patrick J. Donnelly for the respondent. 
 
 
1 To the extent that O'Neill challenges the denial of his 
motion for a ten-day extension of the May 16, 2023, deadline, 
which he does not contend would have enabled him to comply with 
the order, the issue is moot.