Not by filing a notice. The Supreme Judicial Court held that neither statute the occupant relied on gave her a right to automatically transfer her summary process (eviction) case from the Housing Court to the Superior Court, and that mandamus was not the right way to force a transfer. This is a published decision of the Supreme Judicial Court and is binding statewide.
What happened
In July 2025, a hotel business operating as Staybridge Suites (the owner) filed a summary process case against the occupant in the Eastern Division of the Housing Court. In August, the occupant filed a notice in the Housing Court that she said automatically moved the case to the Superior Court. A Housing Court judge denied the transfer, and the case stayed in the Housing Court.
The occupant then asked a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for relief in the nature of mandamus, an order directing the Housing Court to transfer the case. The single justice sent the matter back for written findings. The Housing Court judge reviewed the statutes she relied on, and others, and found no legal basis for a transfer. The single justice then denied relief. While the appeal was pending, the Housing Court entered summary judgment for the owner for possession, damages and costs, and denied the occupant’s counterclaims.
What the court decided
The full court affirmed in Linardon v. Staybridge Suites, SJC-13849 (Mass. March 2, 2026). It gave two reasons.
Mandamus is a last resort. Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary and is granted only where no other relief is available. DeLong v. Register of Probate for Middlesex County, 495 Mass. 1031, 1032 (2025). The occupant had other options. She could raise the transfer issue in an appeal after final judgment. Or she could ask a single justice of the Appeals Court for interlocutory relief under G.L. c. 231, § 118, first paragraph, which allows a party to seek review of certain trial court orders, including Housing Court orders, within 30 days.
There was no clear duty to transfer. Mandamus asks a government official to perform a clear-cut duty. The occupant pointed to two statutes. The court explained that G.L. c. 212, § 4 only describes the Superior Court’s jurisdiction and says nothing about automatic transfer. And G.L. c. 231, § 103, the other statute she relied on, says in its own text that it does not apply to actions or counterclaims under G.L. c. 239, the summary process statute. So neither statute created a clear duty to transfer the case.
The court also declined to sanction the occupant, as the owner had asked. It noted that the Housing Court had already ordered an appeal bond in the full amount of the judgment, and that use and occupancy payments during any appeal could be addressed in the Housing Court. See Adjartey v. Central Div. of the Hous. Court Dep’t, 481 Mass. 830 (2019).
What this means for you
If you are facing an eviction case in the Housing Court, you generally cannot pull it into the Superior Court by filing a transfer notice. The transfer statute some people cite expressly excludes summary process cases. Expect your case to be heard where it was filed.
This decision also shows a common trap. Time spent on the wrong procedure is time not spent on your defense. While the occupant pursued mandamus, her eviction case moved forward and ended in judgment against her. The Housing Court has its own judges and procedures built for housing disputes, and your strongest defenses and counterclaims belong there.
If a Housing Court judge makes a ruling you think is wrong before the case ends, there are real paths to review. You can preserve the issue for appeal after judgment. In some cases you can seek review from a single justice of the Appeals Court under G.L. c. 231, § 118, but the 30-day deadline is strict. Going straight to the Supreme Judicial Court for mandamus will rarely work when those options exist.
Finally, appeals in eviction cases can come with costs. A judge may order an appeal bond or use and occupancy payments while the appeal is pending.
What to do now
- Focus on your defenses and counterclaims in the Housing Court, such as repairs, retaliation or defective notice. Put them in writing and file them on time.
- If a judge rules against you before trial, write down the date of the order. You may have only 30 days to seek review under G.L. c. 231, § 118.
- Object on the record to any ruling you disagree with, so the issue is preserved for appeal.
- If you plan to appeal a judgment, be ready to address an appeal bond and use and occupancy payments.
- Talk to a lawyer before choosing a procedure. The wrong filing can cost you time you do not have.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
