The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice's denial of extraordinary relief sought by Holly Mayfield in her contentious divorce from Joseph Reardon. Mayfield had asked for relief from an amended divorce judgment, judicial recusal, case transfer, and a stay of proceedings.
The underlying dispute centers on a divorce proceeding that began in Probate and Family Court, where Reardon brought a divorce action against Mayfield that was consolidated with a complaint for separate support. A judgment of divorce nisi entered on September 12, 2024, and the court later amended the judgment on April 1, 2025, to provide terms for a special master to assist with selling the parties' former marital home.
Mayfield, proceeding pro se, repeatedly challenged the appointment of a guardian ad litem and disputed requirements that she pay portions of the guardian's fees. Due to a February 2023 order requiring her to seek permission for filings, she moved for permission to file a motion for relief from judgment on September 19, 2024, and filed the proposed motion as well. While she was granted permission to file the September 2024 motion on October 17, 2024, the Probate and Family Court judge never ruled on it. She filed another postjudgment motion on May 28, 2025, again challenging the guardian appointment and fee requirements.
In November 2025, Mayfield petitioned for extraordinary relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, arguing that the judge's failure to rule on her September 2024 motion prevented her from appealing the initial judgment. The single justice denied her petition, finding she had adequate alternative remedies through ordinary appeals.
The Supreme Judicial Court held that Mayfield can appeal from the amended judgment and may file another postjudgment motion seeking a ruling on her September 2024 motion. The court stated it trusts such a motion "will be docketed and promptly acted on" and that any required leave "will be freely and promptly given."
The court applied the standard that a single justice need not intervene when a petitioner has adequate alternative remedies, and found no abuse of discretion in the denial. The court also noted that Mayfield had improperly filed her appeal under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, which does not apply to challenges of final judgments.