Posts tagged "Koll"

Koll v. Edelstein (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-197-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11868   FRANK KOLL  vs.  RISA EDELSTEIN.       December 10, 2015. Supreme Judicial Court, Appeal from order of single justice.  Practice, Civil, Interlocutory appeal.     The petitioner, Frank Koll (husband), appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.   In the course of what appear to be very contentious divorce proceedings, the parties signed a stipulation that they would sell the marital home.  After they were unable to agree on the details, a judge in the Probate and Family Court appointed a special master to sell the home as well as to oversee the removal of personal property from it as necessary for purposes of sale.  Shortly thereafter, the husband 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 appointing the special master and arguing that he is against the sale of the marital home because he “maintains significant personal and business equipment” there.  The Appeals Court justice summarily denied the petition.  The husband then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court, pressing the same arguments.[1]   The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a showing that “review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.”  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  The husband has not made, and cannot make, such a showing.  He has already sought interlocutory review of the trial judge’s rulings under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., and has been denied relief by a single justice of the Appeals Court.  He is not entitled to any additional review at this juncture.  See Iagatta v. Iagatta, 448 Mass. 1016 (2007); Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996).  Furthermore, there is no reason why the husband cannot adequately obtain review of the judge’s order in a direct appeal from a final divorce judgment.  He argues that selling the home will cause him irreparable harm because he relies on the home for both residential and commercial purposes.  We note, however, that he has vacated the marital home, has been living in a […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 10, 2015 at 4:08 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,