Gianareles v. Zegarowski, 5 N.E.3d 1213

Background

In 2012 the respondent (the child’s great-grandmother) petitioned in Probate & Family Court to be appointed permanent guardian of the petitioner’s infant; the petitioner was a minor (17) when the proceeding began and turned 18 before final disposition.
The parties entered a written stipulation and the petitioner signed a notarized waiver and consent to guardianship without counsel; the judge entered a final decree appointing the respondent permanent guardian.
In May 2013 the petitioner, now represented, filed a petition to remove the guardian and a Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from the judgment as void for lack of due process (claimed denial of right to counsel); the judge denied the 60(b)(4) motion and the petitioner timely appealed that denial to the Appeals Court.
While the 60(b)(4) appeal was pending, the petitioner filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition in the county court seeking extraordinary relief (arguing a constitutional right to counsel in guardianship proceedings like in c.119 care-and-protection cases).
The single justice denied the § 3 petition on threshold grounds: the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy (an appeal from the denial of her 60(b)(4) motion).
The Supreme Judicial Court modified the single justice’s judgment to direct the Probate & Family Court to assemble and transmit the record for the petitioner’s 60(b)(4) appeal, and otherwise affirmed the denial of extraordinary relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner may obtain extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3	§3 relief necessary because appeal from 60(b)(4) is inadequate to vindicate constitutional right to appointed counsel in guardianship	§3 petition is inappropriate because petitioner has adequate alternative remedy: appeal from denial of 60(b)(4) motion	§3 relief denied for failure to show no adequate alternative remedy; appeal under 60(b)(4) is adequate
Whether deprivation of right to counsel in guardianship can render judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4)	Deprivation of counsel would render underlying guardianship decree void and warrant relief	Respondent argued §3 was improper; did not deny that 60(b)(4) could provide relief	Court recognized that if petitioner prevails on appeal, 60(b)(4) relief can void judgment and order a new trial (analogous to Adoption of Rory)
Whether rule 60(b)(4) ruling is final and appealable while related removal petition remains pending	Nolan-style authority allegedly limits scope of 60(b)(4) appeal making it inadequate	The 60(b)(4) order is final and appealable; if necessary trial judge can enter a separate final judgment on that ruling to let appeal proceed	Court held the 60(b)(4) order is effectively final/appealable and the record should be assembled and transmitted for appeal
Whether petitioner’s §3 petition was frivolous so as to warrant fees	N/A (petitioner pursued relief)	Respondent requested attorney’s fees and costs	Request for fees denied; appeal not frivolous

Key Cases Cited

McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 178 (statutory §3 extraordinary-relief standard; no adequate alternative remedy required)
McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495 (§3 requires demonstration of no adequate alternative remedy)
Adoption of Rory, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 454 (deprivation of counsel in child protection/adoption context can render judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4); mandate for new trial)
Wang v. Niakaros, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 166 (discussing Rule 60(b)(4) and void-judgment doctrine)
Harris v. Sannella, 400 Mass. 392 (judgment void for failure to conform to due process must be vacated)
O’Dea v. J.A.L., Inc., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 449 (Rule 60(b)(4) discussion on void judgments)
Petition of Worcester Children’s Friend Soc’y to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 594 (equitable flexibility in child-best-interest proceedings)
Nolan v. Weiner, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 800 (distinguished; did not involve Rule 60(b)(4) void-judgment claim)