Massachusetts Marital Discord Separation Divorce Decree Arrearage Discretion Lawyers Attorneys

PETER S. ANDERSON v. BARBARA A. ANDERSON

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex

April 12, 1990

Barbara and Peter Anderson were married in June, 1965, and Kirsten was born in January, 1971. Marital discord led to the couple's separation in December, 1971, and in October, 1972, Barbara was granted a decree of divorce nisi on the ground of adultery. That decree gave Barbara custody of "their minor child," and obligated Peter to make payments for Kirsten's support. At no time during the divorce proceedings did Peter deny either the date of the separation from Barbara, or the paternity of Kirsten. Soon after the divorce decree became final, in 1973, Peter remarried and settled in Chicago. In October, 1974, Barbara filed a contempt complaint in Probate Court because of Peter's failure to make the child support payments required by the 1972 divorce decree. Peter was found to be in contempt, and ordered to pay $ 16,944 of arrearages. Peter did not raise any question of his paternity during the course of this contempt action. In June, 1975, Barbara filed another contempt complaint, this time in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, seeking to enforce both the 1974 support order and the 1972 divorce decree. The parties, represented by counsel, negotiated, agreed upon and signed a settlement accord which the Illinois court reviewed and entered as a supplemental divorce decree in November, 1975. Not only did Peter not dispute his paternity at this time, but he entered into a settlement which stated that "Kirsten was born to the parties." In 1976, Peter received the results of a semen analysis indicating low fertility. Based on the semen report, Peter stopped making support payments from 1981, and claiming that he was not Kirsten's father. Peter disputed his paternity of Kirsten to a court for the first time in the motions for adjudication of nonpaternity and modification of divorce decree filed in September, 1983. After granting summary judgment for Barbara on Peter's motions for blood and genetic tests, and for adjudication of his paternity, the judge heard Peter's motion for modification of the divorce decree and Barbara's complaint for contempt. He found that Peter had failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances for a modification of his support obligations under the divorce decree. At the same time, the judge found him to be in contempt for failure to comply with that decree, and issued an order requiring Peter to pay Barbara $ 70,322, plus interest. Peter's posttrial motions for a new trial and relief from judgment were denied, as was his March, 1988, motion to stay execution of the judgment, or alternatively, to pay the contempt judgment amount into escrow, pending the outcome of this appeal.

Issues:

Whether the Probate Court judge abused his discretion in denying his motion to order HLA blood and genetic marker tests?

Whether the probate court judge abused his discretion in assessing the arrearages in the judgment for contempt?

1) Whether the Probate Court judge abused his discretion in denying his motion to order HLA blood and genetic marker tests?

Because the Andersons' 1972 and 1975 divorce decrees necessarily contain an adjudication of Peter's paternity, and because those decrees were neither properly appealed nor revised by a timely motion for relief from judgment, we hold that they preclude Peter's 1983 actions to disprove paternity. Therefore, we also reject Peter's contention that the Probate Court judge abused his discretion in denying his motion to order HLA blood and genetic marker tests, because the results would not be relevant to any issue properly before the court.

2) Whether the probate court judge abused his discretion in assessing the arrearages in the judgment for contempt?

The Court concludes there was no abuse of discretion in assessing the arrearages attributable to extraordinary medical and dental expenses in the judgment for contempt. Because the Probate Court did not err in denying Peter relief on his paternity or modification claims, and in assessing, as part of Peter's contempt judgment, arrearages for medical expenses, it is unnecessary for us to review his appeal from the denial of a stay of the execution of the contempt judgment, or in the alternative, an order to place the judgment amount in escrow pending his appeal of the summary judgment decision on his petition to adjudicate nonpaternity. The issue has become moot.

The judgments of the Probate Court are affirmed.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Massachusetts Marital Discord Separation Divorce Decree Arrearage Discretion Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

POST COMMENT

Investing In Tangible Estate- Thing To Consider 5 Stock Investing Strategies Investing In Accessible Vans 4 Key Sectors You Should Consider When Investing In Edmonton 4 Key Reasons that Make Florida Investment Properties worth Investing Advantages Of Investing In Overseas Property Understand The Stock Trading System Before Investing Your Money Tata Housing Development Company Investing In Gurgaon Properties Investing In Real Estate Is Profitable 5 things to check before finalizing an Austin criminal attorney or a Williamson County criminal lawyer Investing In Holiday Rental Property In Spain 6 Essential Steps to Successful Retirement Planning 5 Ways To Find A Disabilities Lawyer In Portland Oregon