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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12261

DAVID C. WALLACE vs. PNC BANK, N.A.

January 16, 2018.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

David C. Wallace (petitioner) filed a petition in the 

county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (general 

superintendence); G. L. c. 249, § 4 (relief in the nature of 

certiorari); and G. L. c. 249, § 5 (relief in the nature of 

mandamus), seeking relief from a judgment of the District Court 

in a summary process proceeding.1 He also challenged a decision 

of the Appellate Division of the District Court affirming the 

appeal bond ordered by the trial judge in the same summary 

process proceeding. The single justice denied the petition 

without a hearing. We affirm. 

Regardless of whether relief is requested in the nature of 

certiorari or mandamus, or by means of the court's extraordinary 

power of general superintendence, relief is available only where 

the petitioner demonstrates the absence of an adequate and 

effective alternative remedy. See Picciotto v. Appeals Court 

(No. 2), 457 Mass. 1002, 1002 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 

1044 (2010) (certiorari review unavailable where other paths for 

review available); Boston Edison Co. v. Selectmen of Concord, 

355 Mass. 79, 82-83 (1968) (purpose of certiorari is to provide 

a remedy in absence of reasonably adequate alternative). See 

 1 The petition also sought to stay execution of the judgment 

of eviction, which was scheduled for January 2, 2017. The 

respondent vacated the premises, and it appears that request has 

become moot through the passage of time. We do not address that 

issue further. See Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 2), 428 Mass. 

1022, 1022 (1999).
2

also Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006) (relief 

in nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and granted in court's 

discretion only where other relief unavailable); Greco

v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996) (relief 

properly denied under G. L. c. 211, § 3, "where there are 

[other] adequate and effective routes . . . by which the 

petitioning party may seek relief"). 

The petitioner failed to carry his burden of showing that 

adequate alternative remedies were not available here. To the 

extent he challenged the Appellate Division's decision affirming 

the District Court judge's order declining to waive an appeal 

bond, "[t]he proper course for [him] to have followed, if [h]e 

wished further to challenge the bond, was to refuse to pay the 

bond, suffer the dismissal of [his] summary process appeal, and 

then appeal to the Appeals Court (on the limited bond issue) 

from the order of dismissal."2 Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 1), 

428 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1998) (collecting cases). See Erickson

v. Somers, 446 Mass. 1015, 1015 (2006). To the extent he sought 

review of the underlying summary process proceeding itself or 

restoration of his use and occupancy of the premises, he could 

have posted the appeal bond in a timely manner and prosecuted an 

appeal from the summary process judgment in the ordinary 

appellate process. See Kim v. Rosenthal, 473 Mass. 1029, 1030 

(2016); Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 2), 428 Mass. 1022, 1022

(1999).3

Judgment affirmed.

Rockwell P. Ludden for the petitioner.

Michael Grant for the respondent.

 2 The petitioner did not allege that he is indigent or seek 

waiver of the appeal bond on that ground. See G. L. c. 239, 

§ 5.

 3 We deny the respondent's request for attorney's fees or 

double costs.