Title: Koll v. Edelstein

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-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 
 
                                                 
 
1 Additionally, while the husband's appeal from the denial 
of his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition has been pending, he filed an 
emergency motion to stay the sale of the marital home.  That 
motion, which was referred to a second single justice, was also 
summarily denied. 
2 
 
 
 
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 hotel, and has given no 
indication why, if that is not suitable, he cannot instead find 
a new, more permanent place to reside.  He also argues that 
because his irrigation and landscaping business is 
"headquartered" at the marital home, the sale of the home 
"equates to a potential loss of his entire business and only 
source of income," and would "have a conclusively ruinous effect 
on the business."  Again, however, he provides no explanation.  
He does not, for example, indicate that he cannot relocate the 
business or why doing so would be a hardship. 
 
 
Finally, we note that the husband agreed to the sale of the 
home when he signed the stipulation to that effect.  (He states 
that he did so unwillingly but provides no explanation.)  The 
stipulation provides that a certain portion of the net proceeds 
from the sale of the home will be advanced to each party and 
that the remainder will be held in escrow by the husband's 
counsel pending final resolution of the divorce.  The husband, 
in other words, will recognize his share of a financial benefit 
from the sale. 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Anthony J. Low & Anna Shapiro for the petitioner.