Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Sevket Aktas's petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that adequate ordinary appellate remedies were available because the petitioner had been authorized to file a late notice of appeal from a Probate and Family Court judgment but failed to file the notice as directed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court properly denied extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 when the petitioner had an adequate ordinary appellate remedy but failed to pursue it as directed.
Holdings
- Extraordinary relief was properly denied because the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy—an appeal to a panel of the Appeals Court—but failed to file a notice of appeal in the Probate and Family Court within the applicable or extended time.
Key quotations
“It is incumbent on a party seeking exercise of this court's extraordinary power of general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of alternative means of redress.”
“The single justice did not commit a clear error of law or abuse her discretion in denying relief.”
Factual background
The petitioner and respondent were divorced pursuant to a judgment entered February 7, 2011. The Probate and Family Court subsequently modified child support and set aside the property settlement. Although an Appeals Court single justice authorized the petitioner to file a late notice of appeal in the Probate and Family Court by November 24, 2014, the petitioner instead filed miscellaneous materials in the Appeals Court and never filed the required notice of appeal.
Procedural history
The parties were divorced in 2011. The Probate and Family Court later modified child support and set aside the property settlement. After the petitioner failed to file a notice of appeal in the Probate and Family Court within either the original or extended period, he sought extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied relief, and the full court affirmed.