In re an Appeal Bond

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

In re an Appeal Bond

697 N.E.2d 994, 428 Mass. 1013, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 479

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedAugust 14, 1998

DocketNo. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 697 N.E.2d 994 (In re an Appeal Bond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re an Appeal Bond, 697 N.E.2d 994, 428 Mass. 1013, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 479 (Mass. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition requests that the single justice grant relief from a decision of a single justice of the Appeals Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5, declining to waive an appeal bond in an underlying summary process action that originated in the Housing Court. The single justice of this court correctly denied the c. 211, § 3, petition because the petitioner had an alternative remedy. The proper course for her to have followed, if she wished further to 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. Ford v. Braman, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 968, 970 (1991). See PGR Mgt. Co. v. Credle, 427 Mass. 636, 638-639 (1998); Tamber v. Desrochers, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 234 (1998); Home Sav. Bank v. Camillo, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 910 (1998).

We do not decide various claims raised by the appellant that were not raised before the single justice. Nor do we express any view on the merits of her claims concerning the bond.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The petition requests that the single justice grant relief from a decision of a single justice of the Appeals Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5, declining to waive an appeal bond in an underlying summary process action that originated in the Housing Court. The single justice of this court correctly denied the c. 211, § 3, petition because the petitioner had an alternative remedy. The proper course for her to have followed, if she wished further to 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. Ford v. Braman, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 968, 970 (1991). See PGR Mgt. Co. v. Credle, 427 Mass. 636, 638-639 (1998); Tamber v. Desrochers, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 234 (1998); Home Sav. Bank v. Camillo, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 910 (1998).

We do not decide various claims raised by the appellant that were not raised before the single justice. Nor do we express any view on the merits of her claims concerning the bond.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 N.E.2d 994, 428 Mass. 1013, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-an-appeal-bond-mass-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack