Opinion
13-P-1930
10-24-2014
STEPHANIE BEUKEMA v. JOHN DEWDNEY.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The parties received a judgment of divorce dated January 24, 2012. The defendant appeals from two judgments of contempt entered against him in May, 2013, by a judge of the Probate and Family Court. He asserts that the judgments should not have entered against him because the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence for the judge to find him in contempt.
Defendant makes numerous arguments requesting that the court enforce the parties' separation agreement, seemingly seeking to reverse the judge's modifications of that agreement. That issue has already been settled by this court in a separate appeal. Beukema v. Dewdney, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 1117 (2013). Accordingly, we do not address those arguments.
The defendant's arguments challenging the contempt judgments do not rise to the level of an appellate argument. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975); Graham v. Quincy Food Serv. Employees Assn., 407 Mass. 601, 605 n.2 (1999). "[B]ald assertions of error, lacking in legal argument and authority" are not appropriate appellate argument. Zora v. State Ethics Commn., 415 Mass. 640, 642 n.3 (1993). "The fact that the [defendant] is pro se does not excuse him from compliance with relevant rules of substantive and procedural law." Pandey v. Roulston, 419 Mass. 1010, 1011 (1995), citing McGowan v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 388 Mass. 1003, 1004 (1983).
Even were we to reach the merits of the defendant's claims, the judge did not abuse her discretion in entering the judgments of contempt against the defendant. The order directing the defendant to pay the outstanding balance due to the plaintiff was clear and unequivocal and, on this record, clearly was disobeyed by the defendant. O'Connell v. Greenwood, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 149-150 (2003). He cannot use this appeal to relitigate the modification of his separation agreement or to challenge the factual basis of the orders underlying the contempt actions.
Judgments of contempt affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Grainger & Hanlon, JJ.),
Clerk Entered: October 24, 2014.