Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/456/456mass1015.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 23:48:57+00:00

Document:
MARIE WINFIELD & another [Note 1] vs. ELDER SERVICES OF MERRIMACK VALLEY, INC.
At all times relevant to the proceedings in the county court, the Probate and Family Court order of which the Winfields seek review was interlocutory. The G. L. c. 19A case against them remained open and active in the Probate and Family Court, and, as the single justice noted, the Winfields had already sought review of the eviction order pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where, as here, "there are other routes by which the petitioning party may adequately seek relief." Sabree v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1003 , 1003 (2000). "Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under [G. L.] c. 231, § 118, would suffice." Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019 , 1019-1020 (1996), and cases cited. On the record before him, therefore, the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying extraordinary superintendence relief.
The judgment of the single justice denying the petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is affirmed. The Winfields shall have thirty days from the date of the issuance of the rescript to file a notice of appeal from the final judgment in the Probate and Family Court.
Eric Schutzbank for the defendant.
Robert Winfield, pro se, was present but did not argue.
[Note 2] Elder Services of Merrimack Valley, Inc. (ESMV), is the agency designated by the Executive Office of Elder Affairs under G. L. c. 19A to provide protective services for the elderly in the Merrimack Valley.
[Note 3] The protective services petition involving the Winfields had been consolidated with separate guardianship actions involving both Carpinone and Schiavoni.
[Note 4] The Winfields assert, among other things, that they have not been able to retrieve their possessions from the apartment. To the extent that this may be true, it appears it is because the Winfields had not complied with the Probate and Family Court's directions to arrange a suitable time to remove their belongings.
[Note 5] The Winfields did not file a notice of appeal from the denial of their G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition until approximately three months after judgment had entered. They provide no explanation for the late notice, nor have they sought an extension of time. This itself is reason not to disturb the decision of the single justice.
[Note 6] The protective services complaint was dismissed on October 13, 2009, after both the Winfields and ESMV had filed their briefs on appeal but prior to oral argument.
[Note 7] We are mindful that the issues raised by this case are not insignificant. The case involves, among other things, questions concerning the protective services statute for abused elderly persons, G. L. c. 19A, §§ 14-26; the role of protective services agencies such as ESMV; and the process afforded under the statute to individuals in the position of the Winfields. In our view these important questions can be better addressed on a fully developed record and full briefing in a direct appeal from the final judgment, rather than on the limited record and briefing that was before the single justice concerning what was then an interlocutory ruling of the trial court.

References: § 118
 § 3
 v. 
 § 3
 § 118
 v. 
 § 3
 § 3