Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 6 (2026)

Venue of libel

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 6. Actions for divorce shall be filed, heard and determined in the probate court, held for the county where one of the parties lives, except that if either party still resides in the county where the parties last lived together, the action shall be heard and determined in a court for that county. In the event of hardship or inconvenience to either party, the court having jurisdiction may transfer such action for hearing to a court in a county in which such party resides.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1925–2016 · leading case: Bushnell v. Bushnell, 472 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bushnell v. Bushnell, 472 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. 1984). “207, § 14, governing actions concerning marriage and divorce, and on G. L. c. 208, § 6, which places jurisdiction of such actions in the Superior and Probate Courts.”

Holt v. Holt, 149 N.E. 40 (Mass. 1925). “” It is provided by G. L. c. 208, § 6, that libels for divorce shall be filed, heard and determined in the Superior Court *414 held for the county where one of the parties Uves, except that, if the libellant has left the county where the parties lived together, and the libellee…”

Anderson v. Anderson, 238 N.E.2d 868 (Mass. 1968). “G. L. c. 208, § 6; Sampson v. Sampson 223 Mass.”

Silverstein v. Silverstein, 308 N.E.2d 773 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974). “The present Rule 45 was originally adopted in 1934 as Probate Rule (Divorce) 40, which was in turn derived from Divorce Rule 4 (1924), which was adopted shortly after concurrent jurisdiction over libels for divorce was granted to the Probate Courts (see G. L. c. 208, § 6, as…”

Kleeman v. O'Donoghue, 33 Mass. L. Rptr. 385 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2016). “215, section 3; G.L.c. 208, section 6. The Kelso decision now requires that Superior Court judges handle the supposed “ancillary” issues that arise out of a divorce; that decision was—and is— wrong on many levels.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.