Adams v. Adams, 997 N.E.2d 107

Adams appeals a single justice's denial of his G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition from interlocutory rulings in his divorce case.
We previously (2011) vacated the portion valuing the husband’s Wellington Management partnership and remanded to value that interest consistent with our opinion.
On remand, the trial judge referred valuation to a special master and limited witnesses to those who testified previously.
Adams sought relief via G. L. c. 231, § 118 petitions to call a new expert and challenge the mandate limitation; both were denied.
He then filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition arguing the rulings exceeded the remand mandate; we review under Rule 2:21 and affirm the denial.
We held that interlocutory order review was unavailable and that direct appeal is adequate for review; extraordinary relief was not warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interlocutory orders limiting witnesses are reviewable.	Adams: should hear new expert; remand not limiting witnesses.	Adams has had prior relief; no basis for new interlocutory relief.	No extraordinary relief; interlocutory review not warranted.
Whether the petition under c. 211, § 3 is appropriate when direct appeal remains viable.	Adams: needs superintendence relief to correct remand errors.	Ordinary appellate process suffices; Rule 2:21 not satisfied.	Direct appeal adequate; § 3 petition denied.

Minkina v. Frankl, 464 Mass. 1021 (2013) (superintendence not substitute for ordinary trial and appeal)
Iagatta v. Iagatta, 448 Mass. 1016 (2007) (limitations on interlocutory review; extraordinary relief not warranted)
Adams v. Adams, 459 Mass. 361 (2011) (remand for valuation of partnership interest; generally affirmed otherwise)