Court Case Record DAVID S. LOURIE vs. SUSAN D. LOURIE 2012-J-0093 UID(8d9e)


Court Case Number: 2012-J-0093

Case Number2012-J-0093
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex Probate & Fam
CourtMiddlesex Probate & Fam
Court Address
Field Date03/05/2012
Close Date03/13/2012


Alexander D. Jones, Esquire Thalia Sugarman, EsquireDavid S. LouriePlaintiff/Respondent
Susan D. LouriePro Se Defendant/Petitioner
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
03/05/2012 #1 Memo: *** Financial Statement & Children information impounded ***
03/05/2012 #2 Motion to waive entry fee, filed by Susan D. Lourie, is allowed.
03/05/2012 #3 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Susan D. Lourie.
03/06/2012 #4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In an ongoing divorce proceeding, the wife has filed, pro se, a petition for interlocutory relief pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first para. Through that petition, she appears to be seeking review of various orders issued by a judge of the Probate and Family Court. (1) The orders she cites relate to the parties' obligations to exchange "pleadings books" and attempt to reconcile the docket; the appointment of counsel for the younger of two children; a requirement that the younger child undergo therapy; the mother's obligation to seek employment; and the ability of the parties to file new pleadings without leave of court. The specific relief the wife has requested is a stay of the probate court proceedings until the docket can be straightened out or, in the alternative, that "all matters" be dismissed. It is evident from the judge's recent orders that there is considerable confusion on the probate court docket, and the judge has taken various specific steps to try to resolve the problem. The parties were ordered to exchange various documents by March 5, 2012, with an eye to resolving what they could prior to the next scheduled probate court hearing on March 8, 2012. The wife has not demonstrated any need for the Single Justice to intervene in that process, nor has she demonstrated that any other relief is appropriate at this time.(2) Petition denied. (Milkey, J.) *Notice/Attest/Kagan, J. (Footnotes) (1) One order was issued on January 26, 2012; the others we re issued on February 21, 2012, and February 22, 2012. The wife's petition is not timely with respect to the January 26, 2012, order. (2) I note that, to the extent that the alternative relief requested by the wife was dismissal of the husband's complaint, that relief is beyond the authority of the Single Justice to entertain.
03/12/2012 #5 Renewed Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with clarification, filed by Susan D. Lourie. ^
03/13/2012 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: After I denied the wife's petition for interlocutory relief, she filed a new document entitled "Resubmit Request for Interlocutory Review from the Middlesex Probate and Family Court." Treating the new document as a motion for reconsideration, I deny it. The wife simply has not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the single justice to intervene in the ongoing trial court proceedings. Motion denied. (Milkey, J.) *Notice/Attest.