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 Requiremments
Caffyn v. Caffyn: (2004) Leading case on residency requirement for filing for divorce in Massachusetts.
Jurisdiction
Bak v. Bak In a divorce proceeding, the Probate Court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under G. L. c. 209B to make a child custody determination where the Commonwealth was the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding and where there were then no pending custody proceedings elsewhere or other previous valid custody determination. No ground appeared for reversal of the judge's order for custody of the parties' two children. No error appeared in the judge's division of property. An award of alimony was remanded for further consideration. The judge warranted in finding that the husband conveyed certain real estate to his mother in anticipation of imminent divorce proceedings in order to insulate it from claims of the wife, and a judgment was properly entered forbidding conveyance, transfer or encumbrance of the property in order to secure the payments of alimony awarded in the divorce action between the parties.
Feinberg vs. Diamant Although the Probate Court did not have jurisdiction to award support by a divorced parent for a mentally incapacitated adult child, it did have jurisdiction to make such an order pursuant to its general equity power to decide all matters relative to persons placed under guardianship.
Hernandez v. Branciforte A probate judge required a mother to file a petition for removal of her child from Massachusetts, where the permanent removal of the child from Massachusetts without both parents' consent or a finding of good cause was unlawful. In a proceeding for modification of child custody, the mother's failure to obtain leave to remove the child from Massachusetts, combined with a breakdown in communication between the mother and the father and the mother's failure to place the welfare of her child above her own, justified a modification in custody, because the mother did not act in the best interests of her child. The mother was found in contempt given a stipulation and separation agreement that were sufficient to apprise the mother of her obligation to facilitate the child's visitation with his father, which she failed to do, along with numerous dilatory and vexatious actions on the part of the mother and her several lawyers (jointly and separately) and their apparent flouting of court orders. Financial sanctions awarded against the child's mother and only partial attorney's fees to the father's attorney.
Heron v. Heron Case involving the attempt to modify the alimony award. Also the Nevada judgment was res judicata in Nevada as to the division of marital property, res judicata barred a claim for division of marital assets in the Probate and Family Court in Massachusetts.
Khan v. Saminni. 446 Mass. 88 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, February 15, 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 matter to family court in Trinidad.
Klingel v. Reill The parties were divorced in Massachusetts. Shortly after the divorce, the husband moved to Tennessee and the wife and the children moved to New York. While the wife was still a resident of New York, she filed a complaint for contempt in Massachusetts for child support arrears and medical payments. The husband filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that neither party lived in Massachusetts, which was allowed and the wife's complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Subsequently, the wife and children moved back to Massachusetts, she hired a lawyer and filed a new complaint for contempt. Again, the husband filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that even though the wife returned and took residence in Massachusetts, neither party continuously lived in Massachusetts. See M.G.L.A. c.209D, sec. 2-205(a)(1). The motion was denied and the husband was found in contempt, and he appealed this judgment. Massachusetts had jurisdiction to hear the wife's complaint for contempt because the wife and children lived in Massachusetts when she filed the complaint for contempt, which gave the probate court "exclusive jurisdiction" under the statute. The contempt judgment was affirmed.
Mannor v. Mannor 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 Case involving a wife living in Massachusetts and a husband living in Arizona where the Probate and Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to G. L. c. 208, s.s. 4 and 5. The wife introduced sufficient uncontroverted evidence to meet her burden of demonstrating that the marriage was not irretrievably broken until after she moved to Massachusetts. Tthe Probate and Family Court had personal jurisdiction over the husband, where the requirements of the long-arm statute, G. L. c. 223A, s. 3 (g), were satisfied, in that conversations between the husband and wife that took place in Massachusetts were an act that gave rise to the wife's claim for divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage; and where the husband had enough contacts with Massachusetts to meet the constitutional requirements of due process.
TOP |
