Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 215, § 3 (2026)

Courts and their jurisdictions; general provisions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 3. Probate courts shall have jurisdiction of probate of wills, of granting administration on the estates of persons who at the time of their decease were inhabitants of or residents in their respective counties and of persons who die out of the commonwealth leaving estate to be administered within their respective counties; of the appointment of guardians and conservators; of all matters relative to the estates of such deceased persons and wards; of petitions for the adoption of children, and for change of names; of proceedings transferred to it under the provisions of section four A of chapter two hundred and eleven; and of such other matters as have been or may be placed within their jurisdiction. Whenever service of any notice, summons, citation, order or other process in any of the foregoing proceedings is ordered to be made by publication the names of the estates or parties to such proceedings shall be printed in bold type.

Probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of actions for divorce or for affirming or annulling marriage.

Probate courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all actions concerning the execution and validity of health care proxies created under chapter 201D and caregiver authorization affidavits created under chapter 201F or disputes arising thereunder.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1922–2024 · leading case: Brophy v. New England Sinai Hosp., Inc., 497 N.E.2d 626 (Mass. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brophy v. New England Sinai Hosp., Inc., 497 N.E.2d 626 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 2× “We do note, however, that the plaintiff properly might have petitioned the Probate Court for Bristol County, see G.L.c. 215, §§ 3, 7 (1984 ed.); G.L.c. 201, § 1 (1984 ed.”

Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E.2d 315 (Mass. 1993). · cites it 2× “General jurisdiction over adoptions is granted to the Probate and Family Court, G.L.c. 215, § 3, and can be exercised only as provided by the Legislature with the paramount concern, purpose, and focus of adoption proceedings being the welfare of the child.”

Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla), 430 B.R. 13 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2010). · cites it 2× “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.215, §§ 3, 6. 31 . Heacock v.”

Heacock v. Heacock, 520 N.E.2d 151 (Mass. 1988). “G. L. c. 215, §§ 3, 6 (1986 ed.). See, e.”

Feinberg v. Diamant, 389 N.E.2d 998 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 2× “154 (1942); G. L. c. 215, §§ 3, 6. We summarize the facts briefly as follows.”

Hodas v. Morin, 442 Mass. 544 (Mass. 2004). “208, § 5 (in proceeding for divorce, plaintiff must be domiciled in Mas *548 sachusetts); G. L. c. 215, § 3 (for probate of will, decedent must have been inhabitant or resident of respective county at time of death).”

Albano v. Attorney Gen., 437 Mass. 156 (Mass. 2002). “, G. L. c. 215, § 3 (“Probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of actions for divorce or for affirming or annulling marriage”).”

Jensen v. Daniels, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 811 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “See G. L. c. 215, § 3; Connolly v. Phipps, 283 Mass.”

Hermosilla v. Hermosilla, 447 B.R. 661 (D. Mass. 2011). · cites it 2× “Next, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Alex’s assertion that Cristina’s tort claims were barred by res judicata and/or waived by the Stipulation, noting that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (“SJC”) had rejected the exact argument that Alex set forth.”

Pearson v. Pearson, 751 N.E.2d 921 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “208, § 28, but by way of the court’s general equity powers under G. L. c. 215, §§ 3, 6, authorizing entry of orders for persons under guardianship.”

Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla), 450 B.R. 276 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011). “G.L. c. 215, §§ 3, 6 (1986 ed.). See, e.g.”

Ventrice v. Ventrice, 26 N.E.3d 1128 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). “In particular, this precondition could discourage or even prevent one of the parties from seeking to modify the divorce judgment if a material change in circumstances or the best interests of the parties’ four children so required.”

Show all 44 citing cases →

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.