| KRISTIN G. BEDELL vs. SCOTT BEDELL | | | | dismissal, but the motion was denied after a |
| SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS | | | | hearing. Kristin also sought to appeal from the single |
| September 17, 2008 | | | | justice's denial of her petition under G. L. c. 231, § |
| Facts: | | | | 118, first par. Kristin took no further action until |
| In February, 2006, Kristin Bedell filed a complaint for | | | | December 24, 2007, when she filed her G. L. c. 211, |
| divorce from her husband, Thomas Bedell. On March | | | | § 3, petition, which the single justice denied. The |
| 8, 2007, during the course of the divorce | | | | wife appealed. |
| proceedings, Thomas filed a motion seeking to be | | | | Issues: |
| released from the automatic restraining order that | | | | - Whether the trial court erred in denying the wife |
| was in place pursuant to Rule 411 of the | | | | interlocutory petition? |
| Supplemental Rules of the Probate Court (2008). | | | | - Whether the court properly denied the wife petition |
| Thomas, whose death was imminent, wanted to be | | | | under G. L. c. 211, § 3? |
| released from the restraining order so that he could | | | | Discussion: |
| transfer his interests in certain assets to his children | | | | The Court held that "Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is |
| from a previous marriage. If Thomas had passed | | | | properly denied "where there are adequate and |
| away before the divorce proceedings concluded and | | | | effective routes . . . by which the petitioning party |
| he had not been released from the provisions of the | | | | may seek relief. The petitioner bears the burden to |
| restraining order, the assets in question would have | | | | allege and demonstrate the absence or inadequacy |
| passed to Kristin rather than to his children. On March | | | | of other remedies. Kristin has not met this burden. |
| 15, 2007, the probate judge allowed the motion, over | | | | The order releasing Thomas from the restraining |
| Kristin's objection, on the basis that it would be | | | | order was, initially, an interlocutory order from which |
| inequitable for Kristin to receive one hundred per cent | | | | Kristin appropriately sought review pursuant to G. L. c. |
| of the marriage assets because of Thomas's "sudden | | | | 231, § 118, first par. After Thomas died, however, |
| and imminent death." Shortly thereafter, on March | | | | the order became final. Kristin thus had an adequate |
| 19, 2007, Kristin filed a motion in the Probate and | | | | and effective avenue for seeking relief: once the |
| Family Court to stay the order. She also filed a | | | | order became final, on Thomas's death and the |
| petition for interlocutory relief with a single justice of | | | | abatement of the divorce proceedings, she could |
| the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, | | | | have sought review of the order in the Appeals |
| first par. On March 20, 2007, Thomas died. Kristin's | | | | Court. Kristin's claims do not warrant the |
| motion to stay the order releasing Thomas from the | | | | extraordinary relief of G. L. c. 211, § 3." |
| restraining order was denied the same day. Her | | | | This Court affirmed the order of the single Justice. |
| petition for interlocutory relief was also denied. On | | | | Disclaimer: |
| April 4, 2007, a suggestion of death and a request | | | | These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law |
| for a dismissal of the divorce proceedings was filed in | | | | Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of |
| the Probate and Family Court on behalf of Thomas. | | | | the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be |
| A judgment of dismissal was entered on April 11, | | | | consulted for their authoritative content. |
| 2007. Kristin moved to vacate the judgment of | | | | |