Case Title: Aktas v. Aktas

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12104

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12104 
 
SEVKET AKTAS  vs.  TINA AKTAS. 
 
 
December 27, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Notice of appeal. 
 
 
The petitioner, Sevket Aktas, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition for 
extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
The petitioner was divorced from the respondent, Tina 
Aktas, pursuant to a judgment of divorce nisi entered February 
7, 2011.  In May, 2011, the respondent filed a complaint for 
modification of child support in the Probate and Family Court, 
which was followed, in January of the following year, by a 
motion pursuant to Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 60(b) to set aside the 
property settlement in the divorce judgment.  A judge allowed 
both requests for relief, issuing a judgment dated December 27, 
2013.   
 
The petitioner then made several pro se filings in the 
Appeals Court in an attempt to appeal from the judgment.  The 
first was treated as a motion to file a late notice of appeal, 
which was denied without prejudice.  The petitioner renewed the 
motion to file a late notice of appeal in his second filing in 
the Appeals Court, and a single justice of that court granted 
the motion, directing the petitioner "to file his notice of 
appeal in the Probate and Family Court on or before November 24, 
2014."  However, rather than file a notice of appeal in the 
Probate and Family Court as directed, the petitioner made a 
third pro se filing in the Appeals Court on November 24, 2014, 
which consisted of a number of miscellaneous documents (but not 
a notice of appeal).  The Appeals Court clerk docketed the 
2 
 
 
 
miscellaneous materials, but notified the petitioner that the 
case was closed and that "[n]o action will be taken by the court 
on this or any future filing in this matter."   
 
The petitioner then sought extraordinary relief from a 
single justice of this court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
which the single justice denied.   
 
"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."  Lasher v. Leslie-Lasher, 474 
Mass. 1003, 1004 (2016).  The petitioner has failed to meet that 
burden here, where he had the opportunity to obtain review of 
the judgment of the Probate and Family Court judge in an appeal 
to a panel of the Appeals Court; was given leave by a single 
justice of the Appeals Court to file a late notice of appeal in 
the Probate and Family Court in order to avail himself of that 
remedy; yet failed to file a notice of appeal in the Probate and 
Family Court as directed, either within the time initially 
provided by the rules or within the extended time authorized by 
the Appeals Court single justice.  See Mass. R. A. P. 3 (a), as 
amended, 378 Mass. 927 (1979) ("An appeal permitted by law from 
a lower court shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with 
the clerk of the lower court . . ."); Mass. R. A. P. 4, as 
amended, 430 Mass. 1603 (1999) (defining time within which 
notice of appeal must be filed); Mass. R. A. P. 14 (b), as 
amended, 378 Mass. 939 (1979) (authorizing single justice of 
appellate court to extend time for filing notice of appeal).  
See also Lasher, supra (affirming denial of relief pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, where adequate review of order denying relief 
from divorce judgment could be obtained "through the ordinary 
appellate process, in an appeal to a panel of the Appeals 
Court"); Cimini v. Cimini, 449 Mass. 1033 (2007) (affirming 
denial of relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, where 
appropriate avenue for relief from interlocutory order of 
Probate and Family Court judge was "to appeal in the ordinary 
course from any final adverse judgment in the Probate and Family 
Court").  The single justice did not commit a clear error of law 
or abuse her discretion in denying relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Sevket Aktas, pro se.