Skip to content

Massachusetts Legal Resources

Massachusetts Legal Resources & News

Menu
  • Massachusetts Legal News
  • Sample Page
Menu

Schifano v. Razzaboni, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-173-13)

Posted on September 18, 2013

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11343

 

FRANK SCHIFANO  v.  HENRY RAZZABONI & another,[1] trustees.[2]

 

 

September 16, 2013.

 

 

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Contempt. Practice, Civil, Contempt, Appeal.

 

 

 

Frank Schifano appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  He challenges an order of a judge in the District Court that, among other things, declared him to be in contempt of a prior order that he make payments toward an outstanding judgment.  The judge found that Schifano had the ability to pay.  She also ordered that Schifano be jailed if he failed to pay a certain amount by a given date.  It appears, however, that although Schifano has not paid that amount, he has not been jailed.  We affirm the judgment.

 

In supplementary process proceedings such as these, “[t]here shall be no appeal from any judgment, order or sentence.”  G. L. c. 224, § 18.  While this does not deprive us of our extraordinary power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, “we will rarely employ our superintendence power to review rulings where the Legislature has expressly stated that there shall be no appeal.”  Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 846 (2009)  The Birchall case was “precisely the kind of rare case that may justify the exercise of superintendence power” because there, the petitioner had been incarcerated for his contempt.  Id. at 847.  That is not the case here, as Schifano has not been incarcerated.  The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by declining to exercise this court’s extraordinary superintendence power in these circumstances.

 

 

Judgment affirmed.

 

 

Jordan L. Shapiro for the petitioner.

Lawrence P. Murray for the respondent.

 

 


     [1] Alfred Razzaboni.

     [2] Of Winter Street Realty Trust.

Full-text Opinions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA – Summary
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER.
  • Commonwealth v. Palmer (AC 24-P-365) COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER – SUMMARY
  • Hello world!

Recent Comments

  1. sidepot on Commonwealth v. Rodriguez (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-022-13)
  2. عش كرة القدم on Commonwealth v. Rodriguez (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-022-13)
  3. LouisHof on Removed Tremont St. Trees Presented Public Safety Hazard, According to City
  4. Mobile Legends: Bang Bang on City Opens Counseling Center on Columbus Avenue
  5. elektrokarniz kypit_xtKn on Removed Tremont St. Trees Presented Public Safety Hazard, According to City
©2025 Massachusetts Legal Resources | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme

Powered by
...
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by