Massachusetts Appellate Cases / Jurisdiction
On this page we are compiling links to the full text of important Massachusetts Appellate Cases on Family Law and Divorce decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
These cases are for educational purpose only and should not be used for any official or legal purpose. Please consult official reports. Below you will be able to search for Massachusetts Appeals Court Slip Opinions and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Slip Opinions relating to Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Cases in Massachusetts
Residency Requirements
Caffyn v. Caffyn, 441 Mass. 487 (2004):
“A plaintiff in a divorce action who has not complied with the statutory one-year residency requirement may nevertheless satisfy the alternative statutory requirements for subject matter jurisdiction in Massachusetts, by asserting domicile after a brief period of residence and claiming that the cause for the divorce, namely an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, occurred in Massachusetts.”
Jurisdiction
Bak v. Bak,
24 Mass. App. Ct. 608 (1987): In this dispute over child custody in a divorce proceeding, the probate court judge did not err in refusing to defer to a West German court order regarding the issue of child custody because the child had lived in Massachusetts for over 13 months prior to the divorce.
Cerutti-O'Brien v. Cerutti-O'Brien, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 166 (2010):
Chaar v. Chehab, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 501 (2010): Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act governs all cases of custody dispute where a parent as attempted to enforce a judgment from the court of another country. If the laws of that court meet the substantial conformity test, then the courts of the Commonwealth shall enforce the international judgment. The test has three prongs: 1) the foreign court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; 2) the foreign court applied procedural and substantive law reasonably comparable to the Commonwealth’s laws; and 3) the foreign court based its order on a finding of the best interest of the child. MA Appeals court did not enforce the foreign judgment because it did not conform to MA laws under the substantial conformity test.
Feinberg vs. Diamant, 378 Mass. 131 (1979): “Jurisdiction to issue an order compelling a divorced parent to contribute to support of an incapacitated adult child is vested in probate court, not by reason of statute, but by reason of its general equity powers or powers to decide all matters relative to persons placed under guardianship of another or others.”
Hernandez v. Branciforte,
55 Mass. App. Ct. 212 (2002): Wife appealed an order of the Probate and Family Court which placed her in contempt and granted her husband’s complaint for modification of judgment of divorce nisi after the wife had moved to Italy with their child. The court held that Massachusetts had jurisdiction because the Italian court refused to decide on the issue when the husband originally filed it in Italy. Also the child and the father both had “significant connection” to the Commonwealth.
Heron v. Heron, 428 Mass. 537 (1998): Former wife filed for modification of divorce judgment out of state. The SJC held that modification could not be made out of state due to the full faith and credit doctrine. Furthermore, because the ordering state, under the state’s own law would not allow the modification, the full faith and credit doctrine precludes a Massachusetts court from doing so.
Khan v. Saminni, 446 Mass. 88 (2006): “A consent decree issued by a family court in Trinidad was in substantial conformity with the law of Massachusetts such that the trial court was required under Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA) to defer jurisdiction over the matter to the family court in Trinidad.”
Klingel v. Reill, 446 Mass. 80 (2006): Massachusetts court had jurisdiction to enforce its child support order previously rendered where the child and wife moved back to the Commonwealth even though the husband was no longer a resident in Massachusetts. There is no requirement of continuous and uninterrupted residence in the state which issued the original order.
Mannor v. Mannor, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 46 (1998): A judgment of divorce in Ohio entered on 1994, was valid and rendered a separate divorce judgment entered in Massachusetts on 1995, a nullity; the child and spousal support orders contained in the Ohio judgment were enforceable under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act without regard to any authority of the Probate and Family Court to enter temporary orders.
Miller v. Miller,
448 Mass. 320 (2007): Where the parties irretrievable break down of their marriage occurred at a time when at least one of the parties was domiciled in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth shall have subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce action. Where the plaintiff can show that the terms of the long arm statute are satisfied, the court shall also have personal jurisdiction over the husband in a divorce action.
TOP |
