Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title I Chapter 215
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 215, § 6 (2026)

Courts and their jurisdictions; equity jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 6. The probate and family court department shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme judicial court and the superior court department of all cases and matters of equity cognizable under the general principles of equity jurisprudence and, with reference thereto, shall be courts of general equity jurisdiction, except that the superior court department shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all actions in which injunctive relief is sought in any matter growing out of a labor dispute as defined in section twenty C of chapter one hundred and forty-nine.

Probate courts shall also have jurisdiction concurrent with the supreme judicial and superior courts, of all cases and matters in which equitable relief is sought relative to: (i) the administration of the estates of deceased persons; (ii) wills, including questions arising under section twenty of chapter one hundred and ninety-one; (iii) trusts created by will or other written instrument; (iv) cases involving in any way the estate of a deceased person or the property of an absentee whereof a receiver has been appointed under chapter two hundred or the property of a person under guardianship or conservatorship; (v) trusts created by parol or constructive or resulting trusts; (vi) all matters relative to guardianship or conservatorship; and (vii) actions such as one described in clause (11) of section three of chapter two hundred and fourteen and of all other matters of which they now have or may hereafter be given jurisdiction. They shall also have jurisdiction to grant equitable relief to enforce foreign judgments for support of a wife or of a wife and minor children against a husband who is a resident or inhabitant of this commonwealth, upon an action by the wife commenced in the county of which the husband is a resident or inhabitant. They shall, after the divorce judgment has become absolute, also have concurrent jurisdiction to grant equitable relief in controversies over property between persons who have been divorced. They shall also have jurisdiction of an action by an administrator, executor, guardian, conservator, receiver appointed as aforesaid or trustee under a will to enjoin for a reasonable period of time the foreclosure, otherwise than by open and peaceable entry, of a mortgage on real estate, or the foreclosure of a mortgage on personal property, which real estate or personal property is included in the estate or trust being administered by such fiduciary, if in the opinion of the court the proper administration of the estate or trust would be hindered by such foreclosure. They shall also have jurisdiction, concurrent with the superior court, of proceedings in which equitable relief is sought under sections seven to twelve, inclusive, of chapter one hundred and seventeen and section twenty-six of chapter one hundred and twenty-three.

Notwithstanding any contrary or inconsistent provisions of the General Laws, procedure in cases in the probate court within the jurisdiction granted by this section shall be governed by the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 152 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1922–2025 · leading case: Recinos v. Escobar, 46 N.E.3d 60 (Mass. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Recinos v. Escobar, 46 N.E.3d 60 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 6× “The primary issue raised by the plaintiff on appeal is whether the Probate and Family Court has jurisdiction pursuant to its broad equity powers under G. L. c. 215, § 6, over immigrant youth between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one to entertain a request to make the necessary…”
Santagate v. Tower, 833 N.E.2d 171 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “” We read this as a claim for restitution, invoking the Probate and Family Court’s general equity jurisdiction pursuant to G. L. c. 215, § 6. 1 The mother argues in effect that the father has been unjustly enriched at her expense by his failure to pay support for the children…”
Dep't of Revenue v. Ryan R., 816 N.E.2d 1020 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 6× “” On September 19, 2000, Susan filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to G. L. c. 215, § 6, seeking to establish Ryan as the child’s father.”
Foster v. Evans, 429 N.E.2d 995 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 7× “This case is before this court on the plaintiff’s application for further appellate review following a decision of the Appeals Court that the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction under G. L. c. 215, § 6, to entertain a creditor’s suit to reach property fraudulently conveyed by a…”
Eccleston v. Bankosky, 780 N.E.2d 1266 (Mass. 2003). · cites it 8× “A Probate and Family Court judge, however, does have authority pursuant to equity powers vested by the Legislature under G. L. c. 215, § 6, to determine whether the father should be required to support his daughter financially beyond her eighteenth birthday.”
Konstantopoulos v. Town of Whately, 424 N.E.2d 210 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 5× “We have construed G. L. c. 215, § 6, as conferring general equity jurisdiction on the Probate Courts.”
Guardianship of Bassett, 385 N.E.2d 1024 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). · cites it 8× “201, § 6A, to invoke the equity powers conferred by G. L. c. 215, § 6. 7 We find sufficient basis in c.”
In the Matter of Moe, 432 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 4× “640, 660-665 (1978); G.L.c. 215, § 6. In Frazier v. Levi, supra , the Texas court in a cursory opinion, quoting extensively from Corpus Juris Secundum and American Jurisprudence, concluded without stating a reason that "[a]ny order authorizing .”
Hodas v. Morin, 442 Mass. 544 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 4× “Does a Probate and Family Court judge have authority pursuant to G. L. c. 215, § 6, to issue prebirth judgments of parentage and to order the issuance of a prebirth rec *545 ord of birth, see Culliton v.”
Superintendent of Belchertown State Sch. v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 215, § 6. It has been given the specific grant of equitable powers to act in all matters relating to guardianship.”
Rogers v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Mental Health, 458 N.E.2d 308 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 3× “215, § 6 (concurrent jurisdiction of the Probate and Superior Courts as to “all matters relative to guardianship and conservatorship”); Custody of a Minor, 375 Mass.”
Wood v. Wood, 342 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 5× “” G. L. c. 215, § 6, as appearing in St. 1973, c.”
Show all 152 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.