Opinion
10-P-1971
12-14-2011
JANICE COCOMAZZI v. MICHAEL COCOMAZZI.
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
In his appeal from a divorce judgment of the Probate and Family Court, Michael Cocomazzi (husband) argues first that the division of marital property was inequitable, plainly wrong, or excessive, and that it therefore constitutes an abuse of discretion under G. L. c. 208, § 34. See Redding v. Redding, 398 Mass. 102, 107-108 (1986). The husband has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. The judge's finding that the jewelry at issue was a gift from the husband to Janice Cocomazzi (wife) was not clearly erroneous. The division of the other assets pursuant to the prenuptial agreement was not an abuse of discretion, nor, in light of the judge's credibility findings, was it impermissible to order the husband to pay the painting contractor.
Next, given both the judge's findings about the husband's choking of the wife, and about his subsequent threats, there is no error in the judge's finding of a reasonable fear of an imminent threat of bodily injury. Therefore there is no error in the extension of the domestic relations protective order, making it permanent until further order of the court and including a no-contact provision.
Finally we read the judge's finding to mean that the husband was responsible for the cost incurred by the 'excessive discovery' that the judge concluded was conducted in the case. Therefore it was within the judge's discretion to order the husband to pay $5,000 of the wife's attorney's fees.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Graham, Rubin & Wolohojian, JJ.),