![]() The judgment incorporated an agreement that included a section entitled "college expenses," which provides: The parties had one child, a son born in 1990. ![]() After a two-day evidentiary hearing, a judge of the Probate and Family Court found that the mother and the father were divorced in California pursuant to a judgment of divorce dated September 6, 1995. However, the judgment was nonetheless not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to hold him in contempt under Massachusetts law.īackground. We conclude that the father is contractually bound by California law to pay his share of the college expenses, as his silence throughout the college application and admission process signifies his acceptance or acquiescence in these circumstances. The plaintiff, Lisette Cooper (mother), contends that the father was properly held in contempt because the father was well aware of the child's college plans, and the father's current wife, a teacher at the child's college preparatory school (prep school), assisted in the child's college application process by writing a letter of recommendation in support of his successful early decision application. The defendant, Eric Keto (father), contends that he is not obligated to pay his share of the college expenses because they were not "agreed upon" as provided in the judgment. We must also resolve choice of law issues, as the California divorce judgment was registered in Massachusetts pursuant to G. The central issue in this case is the correct interpretation of the college expenses provision of a marital separation agreement (agreement) incorporated into a California divorce judgment. REGISTRATION for enforcement of a foreign order of support in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on October 22, 2010.Ī complaint for contempt was heard by Peter C. Moreover, the judge's award of attorney's fees was supported by his findings įinally, the defendant's contentions regarding certain other issues Required by the provision, remand was required regarding certain otherĮxpenses to determine whether they were covered by the provision Judge's findings were well supported regarding most of the expenses Provision was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal further, although the The probate judge's finding of contempt, where the college expenses However, the father's agreement by acquiescence was not sufficient to support To share equally all agreed-upon educational expenses of their child, theĭefendant father's silent acquiescence was sufficient to constitute hisĪgreement to the child's choice of a college and its associated expenses Incorporated into a California divorce judgment requiring the parties In a civil action brought to enforce a provision of a marital separation agreement ![]() The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, G. Incorporated and which had been registered in Massachusetts pursuant to clear and convincing evidence, rather than the standard of proofīeyond a reasonable doubt under California law, applied to a Californiaĭivorce judgment into which a marital separation agreement had been This court concluded that the standard of civil contempt under Massachusetts ![]() Contract, Separation agreement, Offer and acceptance. Practice, Civil, Contempt, Findings by judge, Attorney's fees. Probate Court, Divorce, Findings by judge, Attorney's fees. 798 ApJCourt Below: Probate and Family Court Department, Middlesex Division Present: KANTROWITZ, BROWN, & KAFKER, JJ.ĭivorce and Separation, Separation agreement, Foreign judgment, Attorney's fees. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |