TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kellermann v. Kellermann

Mary C. Kellermann v. Frederick D. Kellermann

Kellermann v. Kellermann, 407 N.E.2d 1262 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Appeals Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 31, 1980
Citations
407 N.E.2d 126210 Mass. App. Ct. 8561980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1273

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The defendant appeals from a judgment entered by a Probate Court on November 1, 1978, purporting to modify a divorce decree which became absolute on July 14, 1971. In her complaint for modification of that decree, the plaintiff sought recovery of arrearages due her under a 1963 separate support order, alimony and child support, and conveyance to her of the defendant’s interest in the parties’ marital domicil. The evidence is not reported; the case is before us on a statement of evidence prepared by the judge. After hearing, the judge found the defendant to be in arrears in the amount of $75,290 under the 1963 separate support order and entered judgment against the defendant for that amount, ordering him to convey to the plaintiff his interest in the parties’ marital domicil, owned by them as tenants in common, “in partial satisfaction of said judgment.” Although the complaint is framed in terms of modification (and the judge so treated it), we are of the opinion that it should be treated as a petition for alimony and division of property under G. L. c. 208, § 34, and not as a petition to “revise and alter” a divorce judgment under G. L. c. 208, § 37, because the 1971 decree contained no provision for alimony. See Kinosian v. Kinosian, 351 Mass. 49, 51-52 (1966); Wyman v. Wyman, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 358 , 359 n.2 (1975); Peluso v. Peluso, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 906 (1977). Although the 1971 decree did contain an order of conveyance against the defendant, the judge recognized that the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction at that time to enter a decree in personam against the husband requiring him to convey his interest in the marital domicil to the plaintff. See Blitzer v. Blitzer, 361 Mass. 780, 782-783 (1972). We conclude that the judge erred in entering a modification judgment based on arrearages *857 due the plaintiff under the 1963 separate support order, which order was superseded by the divorce decree of 1971. See Jelly v. Jelly, 327 Mass. 706, 709-710 (1951). Cf. Salvesen v. Salvesen, 370 Mass. 608, 610 (1976); Binder v. Binder, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 751, 757-762 (1979). We need not now determine what, if any, rights the plaintiff may have to recover amounts unpaid but due under the separate support order for the period 1963 to 1971. See G. L. c. 208, § 35; G. L. c. 209, § 33; Jelly v. Jelly, 327 Mass. at 710 . See also Binder v. Binder, 7 Mass. App. Ct. at 760-761 . The modification judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Probate Court for a new hearing on the issues of alimony and division of property, and for appropriate findings to be made. See G. L. c. 208, § 34; Bianco v. Bianco, 371 Mass. 420, 423 (1976); Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. 398, 401 (1977); King v. King, 373 Mass. 37, 40 (1977).

Joseph W. Monahan, III, for the defendant. Geoffrey D. Wyler for the plaintiff.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 11984: 11985: 11986: 119832026peak 1983 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Randall v. Randall455 N.E.2d 995 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983)
  2. Cappello v. Cappello501 N.E.2d 535 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)
  3. Nixon v. Levinson477 N.E.2d 1046 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985)
  4. Kellermann v. Kellerman390 Mass. 893 (1984)

Most recent

  1. Cappello v. Cappello501 N.E.2d 535 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)
  2. Nixon v. Levinson477 N.E.2d 1046 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985)
  3. Kellermann v. Kellerman390 Mass. 893 (1984)
  4. Randall v. Randall455 N.E.2d 995 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 10

DepthCaseCited by
Binder v. Binder, 390 N.E.2d 260 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979) 21
Jelly v. Jelly, 100 N.E.2d 681 (Mass. 1951) 10
Rice v. Rice, 361 N.E.2d 1305 (Mass. 1977) 131
Bianco v. Bianco, 358 N.E.2d 243 (Mass. 1976) 67
King v. King, 364 N.E.2d 1218 (Mass. 1977) 29
Salvesen v. Salvesen, 351 N.E.2d 499 (Mass. 1976) 21
Kinosian v. Kinosian, 217 N.E.2d 769 (Mass. 1966) 13
Blitzer v. Blitzer, 282 N.E.2d 918 (Mass. 1972) 12
Wyman v. Wyman, 330 N.E.2d 500 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975) 6
Peluso v. Peluso, 370 N.E.2d 723 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list