TABLE OF CONTENTS TZ. Table o£ Authorities vmvmnnnnnnnnnnnnnunnn II. Statement of Issues. TIL. Summary... IV. Parties., V. Jurisdiction VI. Argument. VIT. Prayer for Relief. A, Did the trial court err in denying Defendant's constitutional due process right to appeal by requiring then to purchase justice, i.e., either to use money they need for the necessities of life in order to pay an appeal bond, or forego their appeal? B, Did the trial court err by failing to recognize the constitutional purpose of the Massachusetts court indigency laws, as upheld in Reade v. Galvin? c. Did the trial court err in failing to recognize that a litigant might not be indigent prior to the imposition of an appeal bond or a “use and occupancy” payment, but that the very imposition of such a bond or payment might render the litigant eligible for a sliding scale amount, in order to preserve the litigant’s ability to invoke the right of appeal? D. Did the trial court err in failing to recognize that the “non-frivolous” threshold for appeals is minimal? EB. Did the trial court err in imposing a greater amount than that of a traditional Supersedeas Bond on a basis where no applicable statute permits imposition of any other than a Supersedeas Bond? F. Did the trial court err in imposing rent-based appeal bonds pursuant to MGL c. 239, §§1 and 6, where the court failed to review petitioner~appellants’ evidence-based challenges to plaintiff’s claimed ownership and standing? G. Did the trial court err by ignoring the statutory limitation as to only “rent” and the contractual tenancy required to create a rent obligation? H. Did the trial court err in ignoring the explicit language of MGL c, 239 §5 which only authorizes an order of periodic payments for “rent as it becomes due,"? Did the trial court err in ordering “use and occupancy” payments post judgment, where the only statutory authority, MGh c. 239 §3 is limited to leased and rented premises? I. Did the judge violate fundamental constitutional equal protection by vastly overbroad inclusion of defendants in purported post foreclosure cases in the same class as standard full tenancies? J. Did the trial court err by failing to recognize that a Plaintiff who never had a right to receive rent payments could not expect to receive a “reasonable rent”? K, Did the trial court err in ignoring explicit language in Plaintiff's Notice to Quit, which language estops the Plaintiff from requesting or receiving rent for any purpose? I. Having ordered post judgment rent and thus created a tenancy, did the trial court err in not dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaints founded upen holdover occupancy? M. Did the Single Justices err in not distinguishing case law covering established landlord tenant relationships and cases where the underlying title to the property had been challenged as prerequisite under MGL c.239 §1 and MGL ¢.239 §6 and thereby unjustly apply MGL c.239 $5 procedural limitation to bar defendants from appealing to a full appeal panel? N. Did the Promulgator of Forms err in assuming that a rent~ based appeal bond under MGL c. 239, §5, applied in a post- foreclosure summary process eviction case, and that, in order to Appeal, a Defendant must either pay this cash bond or get it waived?Table of Authorities cases Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 article 1 Article CVI article x Article XI Article XIT Article XII articles xv Articles XXIII Article XXIX statutes MGL Chap. 211, s. 3 MGL Chap. 1518, $ 1 (17), NGL Chap. 211, § 3 MGL 262 section 4b MGL Chap. 261 $27 MGL Chap.261 $27¢ (4) MGL Chapter 186A NGL Chapter 261 § 27. MGL under chapter 186A Rules District Court Special Rule 211 MRP 8 (b) (3) Rules for the Land Court (Land Court Order 1-06: Recordation of Proceedings) Supreme Judicial Court Rule 2:22 36 16,17, 23, 24,26,27 Electronic 36 a