From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hackett v. Arahovites

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jul 1, 2014
10 N.E.3d 1144 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014)

Opinion

No. 13–P–1537.

2014-07-1

Sharon HACKETT v. John P. ARAHOVITES.

Generally, we review the judge's factual findings with deference. However, where an appellant has failed to produce a transcript of the testimony presented at the trial, that deference is all but conclusive. See Katz v. Katz, 330 Mass. 635, 638 (1953) (“In the absence of reported evidence the findings of the judge must be accepted as true.”); Connolly v. Connolly, 400 Mass. 1002, 1003 (1987) (“In the absence of a transcript, as here, we assume those findings are adequately supported.”). The father has failed to demonstrate how the judge's findings are unsupported. Therefore, despite the fact that the mother's complaint was titled as a modification, this case is more accurately characterized as an invocation of the equitable jurisdiction of the Probate Court to interpret and enforce the parties' separation agreement.



Summaries of

Hackett v. Arahovites

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jul 1, 2014
10 N.E.3d 1144 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014)
Case details for

Hackett v. Arahovites

Case Details

Full title:Sharon HACKETT v. John P. ARAHOVITES.

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Date published: Jul 1, 2014

Citations

10 N.E.3d 1144 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014)
86 Mass. App. Ct. 1101
469 Mass. 1110