Title: Calhoun v. Boyd/Smith, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12123
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: November 15, 2018

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12123 
 
TERRY ANN SELDON CALHOUN  vs.  BOYD/SMITH, INC. 
 
 
November 15, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Appeal, Bond. 
 
 
The petitioner, Terry Ann Seldon Calhoun, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a 
hearing, her petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  Calhoun sought relief from an order of a judge in 
the Housing Court setting an appeal bond in connection with an 
appeal from a summary process judgment.  We affirm. 
 
The single justice properly denied relief, as Calhoun had 
one or more adequate alternative remedies.  See 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").  Indeed, she had pursued one such 
remedy, a request for review of the bond order by a single 
justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5 (f).  
"The proper course for her to have followed, if she wished to 
further challenge the bond, was to refuse to pay the bond, 
suffer the dismissal of her summary process appeal, and then 
appeal to the Appeals Court (on the limited bond issue) from the 
order of dismissal."1  Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 1), 428 
Mass. 1013, 1013 (1998).  See Wallace v. PNC Bank, N.A., 478 
Mass. 1020, 1021 (2018).  "To the extent [she] sought review of 
the underlying summary process proceeding itself or restoration 
                                                          
 
 
1 The petitioner did not allege that she is indigent or seek 
a waiver of the appeal bond on that ground.  See G. L. c. 239, 
§ 5. 
2 
 
 
 
of [her] use and occupancy of the premises, [she] could have 
posted the appeal bond in a timely manner and prosecuted an 
appeal from the summary process judgment in the ordinary 
appellate process."2  Wallace, supra. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Terry Ann Seldon Calhoun, pro se. 
 
Daniel A. Bancroft for the respondent. 
 
                                                          
 
 
2 The respondent, Boyd/Smith, Inc., argues in its brief that 
it is "unable to respond to or anticipate [the petitioner's] 
arguments" on appeal because the petitioner did not file a brief 
in accordance with the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate 
Procedure.  Instead, the petitioner filed a motion to treat an 
accumulation of over ten prior, individual filings as her 
appellate brief.  According to the respondent, the petitioner 
never served a number of these filings on the respondent.  In 
light of our disposition of this appeal, we need not address 
these issues.