Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matteson v. Matteson
Citations: 23 Mass. App. Ct. 945; 501 N.E.2d 538; 1986 Mass. App. LEXIS 1929
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; December 23, 1986; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
Thomas, the defendant and former husband of plaintiff Elizabeth, appeals a contempt judgment from Probate Court dated July 22, 1985. The court found him in contempt for failing to comply with a monetary order, establishing arrears and suspended payments at approximately $1,000. It also modified child support, increasing it to $75 per week until August 16, 1985, and $100 per week thereafter. Thomas contests the award of legal fees, travel expenses, and lost wages, asserting the judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances. The judge determined Thomas, a fishing boat skipper, could pay $25 weekly towards arrears, given his combined household income of $682.69 and expenses of $79.85. Elizabeth and their child had relocated, and their needs had increased, which the judge deemed a material change in circumstances. The appellate court found no clear error in the judge's reasoning and confirmed that the income and assets of Thomas's second wife could be considered in assessing his ability to pay. Elizabeth was awarded approximately $2,500, including $800 in attorney’s fees for eight hours of work and travel expenses from North Carolina to Massachusetts. Thomas argued these amounts were excessive and exceeded his delinquent support payments. However, G. L. c. 215, § 34A grants a prevailing plaintiff presumptive entitlement to reasonable attorney's fees and expenses in contempt actions. The trial judge has discretion in determining these amounts, and the appellate court affirmed the award, finding no reason to disturb the ruling. Elizabeth's rights under the statute were upheld despite the involvement of a family service officer in the complaint, and her necessity to attend court was validated, justifying her incurred expenses. The judgment was affirmed. The judge's decision regarding the awarded expenses was found to be appropriate and consistent with the aims of G. L. c. 215, § 34A, despite ambiguity about the specific number of lost wage days considered. The contempt complaint was initiated on May 9, 1985, prior to a scheduled hearing on June 7, 1985. Thomas's counsel filed an appearance and requested a continuance, but Elizabeth, who was unrepresented at the time, had already left North Carolina and was unaware of this change. Upon arriving in Massachusetts, she retained counsel and subsequently moved there before the second and third hearings. The argument that Elizabeth did not require counsel for the contempt proceeding was dismissed, and it was noted that prior decisions indicate that the amount of recovery is not a reliable measure for determining reasonable attorney fees. Thomas's assertion that the judge failed to differentiate between the attorney's roles in the contempt and modification complaints was rejected, as the transcript indicated that the judge addressed these matters separately.