Posts tagged "1018213"

Adams v. Adams (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-182-13)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us     SJC‑11488     NICHOLAS C. ADAMS  vs.  NANCY W. ADAMS.     October 17, 2013.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.       The petitioner, Nicholas C. Adams (husband), appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.[1]  We affirm.   In 2011, we considered the husband’s appeal from a judgment of divorce from his wife, Nancy W. Adams.  See Adams v. Adams, 459 Mass. 361 (2011).  We vacated that part of the judgment that presently valued the husband’s partnership interest in Wellington Management Company, LLP, and remanded the case for further proceedings “directed solely at valuing that interest” as consistent with our opinion.  Id. at 394.  In all other respects, we affirmed the divorce judgment.  Id.  The husband’s current appeal stems from certain subsequent orders issued in the trial court that the husband claims violate our remand order.     After remand, the trial judge referred the case to a special master to determine the valuation issue.  Among other things, the order stated that the special master would only hear from witnesses who had testified in the initial proceedings (either in the trial court or before the special master).  The husband thereafter filed a petition with a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., seeking relief from the order limiting witnesses because he wished to call a new expert witness.  In essence, the husband argued that no basis existed to limit witnesses to those who had previously testified, and that nothing in our remand order required such a limitation.  The Appeals Court single justice denied the petition.  The husband later filed a second petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., seeking relief from a subsequent order of the trial judge denying his motion for an instruction to the special master to “not exceed or otherwise depart from the mandate of the SJC” and overruling his objection to a discovery order issued by the special master.  This second petition was also denied.  The husband then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court, where he continued to press the same arguments that he raised in his two petitions pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. — that he should be allowed to call a new expert witness […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 17, 2013 at 8:07 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,