Mayfield v. Reardon

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Holly Mayfield’s petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that Mayfield had adequate alternative remedies through ordinary appellate procedures, including seeking a ruling on her pending postjudgment motion in the Probate and Family Court and appealing any adverse decision. The court also concluded that S.J.C. Rule 2:21 did not apply because Mayfield challenged a final judgment.

Holdings

1. S.J.C. Rule 2:21 does not apply when the appellant challenges a final judgment.
2. A petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief when an adequate alternative remedy exists in the ordinary course of appeal.
3. The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying Mayfield's petition because she had adequate alternative remedies in the ordinary course of appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the single justice abused his discretion by denying Mayfield's G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition on the ground that she had an adequate alternative remedy in the ordinary course of appeal.
2. Whether S.J.C. Rule 2:21 governed Mayfield's appeal from the single justice's judgment.
3. Whether the availability of a postjudgment motion seeking a ruling on the unresolved September 2024 motion, followed by an appeal from any adverse ruling, supplied an adequate alternative remedy.

Disposition

affirmed