Case Title: Howard v. Howard

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13265

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2022-10-06T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13265 
 
STANLEY D. HOWARD  vs.  WARREN K. HOWARD. 
 
 
October 6, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Stanley D. Howard (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of 
the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  The petitioner sought relief 
from an order of a Superior Court judge dismissing, in part, his 
complaint against his brother, Warren K. Howard.  Specifically, 
the petitioner requested that the single justice either vacate 
the partial dismissal of his complaint or authorize an immediate 
interlocutory appeal.1  We discern no basis to disturb the 
decision of the single justice.  The petitioner is not entitled 
to extraordinary relief, as he has an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary process, namely, an appeal from any final judgment that 
eventually enters in the Superior Court case.2  "Our general 
 
1 Before filing his petition, the petitioner attempted to 
appeal to the Appeals Court.  That appeal was dismissed on the 
grounds that the order was interlocutory and that the doctrine 
of present execution did not permit an immediate appeal.  The 
petitioner could have applied for further appellate review after 
his appeal was dismissed, see Rasheed v. Appeals Court, 434 
Mass. 1012, 1012 (2001), but did not do so.  He also did not 
file a petition for review pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, 
first par. 
 
2 In his brief before us, the petitioner also requests 
relief relating to the dismissal of an action in the Probate and 
Family Court.  Passing the question whether this request was 
before the single justice, the petitioner similarly had a remedy 
2 
 
superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary 
and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the 
normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional 
layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its 
course."  Harrington v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 484 Mass. 
1041, 1042 (2020), quoting Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 
444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005).  The single justice properly denied 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Stanley D. Howard, pro se. 
 
Sheryl Furnari for the respondent. 
 
in the ordinary appellate process and is not entitled to 
extraordinary relief. 
 
3 In addition, because the petitioner was seeking relief 
from an interlocutory ruling of the trial court, he was 
obligated to file a memorandum pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), "set[ting] forth the reasons why 
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."  He did not do so.  This presents a 
further reason not to disturb the judgment of the single 
justice.