Contempt – Ability to Pay. The requirement that a defendant have a present ability to pay in order to be found in contempt does not necessarily mean that s/he have an ability to pay the entire arrearage, according to the Appeals Court. Further, if a judge orders a defendant in a contempt action to make payments over time to reduce the arrearage, the judge is not also compelled to hold that person in contempt. Poras v. Pauling, 70 Mass.App.Ct. 535 (October 19, 2007)
Contempt for Anticipatory Breach. Timing is everything. Mother could not be held in contempt for threatening not to allow the children to visit father for Christmas, according to the Appeals Court. Rejecting the father’s claim of “anticipatory breach,” the Appeals Court made clear that a contempt judgment cannot enter until “after the time for the mother’s performance had come and gone.” Pederson v. Klare, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 692 (July 23, 2009)
- Alimony
- Arbitration of Family Law Issues
- Attorney-Client Privilege
- Attribution of Income
- Beneficiary Designation
- Child Support
- College
- Contempt
- Dependency Exemptions
- Division of Assets
- Earned Bonus
- Earning Capacity / Imputed Income
- Earnings in a Sub-S
- Emancipation
- Financial Restraining Order on Assets
- Foreign Custody
- Grandparent Visitation
- Health Insurance
- Imputing Income
- Income Equalization
- Income of Second Spouse
- Inheritance
- Inherited Assets
- Joint Legal Custody
- Judicial Discretion
- Jurisdiction
- Life Insurance
- Marital Estate
- Mediation / Unauthorized Practice of Law
- Merger and Survival
- Modification
- Non-Disparagement Provision
- Parent Coordinator
- Parental Fitness
- Parenting Time
- Plan Document Rule
- Postnuptial
- Prenuptial
- QDRO
- “Real Advantage” Standard
- Restraining Order
- Retained Earnings
- Retroactive Support
- Rights of Unmarried Partners
- Same Sex Marriage
- Self-Employment Income
- Stock Options
- Valuation Date
