Rivet v. Travaglia
Rivet v. Travaglia
Opinion of the Court
The petitioner, Vernon S. Rivet, appeals from a judgment of a single justice
It is unclear whether the petitioner intended the documents he filed in this court to be a brief or a memorandum and appendix under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Regardless, the appeal is moot because the auction already has occurred. Flaherty, petitioner, 452 Mass. 1020, 1020 (2008), citing Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003 (2000), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001).
The single justice also correctly determined that, even if the matter had not become moot, relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, was not warranted. The petitioner was obliged to demonstrate that alternative avenues of relief either did not exist or were inadequate. E.g., Sabree v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1003, 1003-1004 (2000). He failed to meet his burden. He could have, for example, appealed to the Appeals Court from the Probate and Family Court judge’s order “directing a commissioner to make a partition by sale of certain land,” Delta Materials Corp. v. Bagdon, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 333, 333 (1992), and sought a stay of the order pending appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
We do not address additional “issues, arguments, and requests for relief that were not before the single justice.” Milton v. Boston, 427 Mass. 1016, 1017 (1998). The petitioner’s filings before this court appear to challenge certain rulings of the Probate and Family Court and the Land Court. It is not apparent whether the petitioner has pursued other remedies that are or were available.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Vernon S. Rivet v. Patricia Travaglia & another
- Status
- Published