Appeals G.L.c. 211, 3 Use and occupancy payments.

Byline: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a petitioner sought relief from an order of the Housing Court requiring him to make use and occupancy payments, a decision by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to deny the petition should be upheld because the petitioner had other adequate and effective avenues by which to seek the requested relief.

"On December 21, 2022, [petitioner Frank] 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.

"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...