Opinion
22-P-366
12-09-2022
CORY JACOB MATTOON[1] v. DANIELLE MARIE MATTOON.[2]
Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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 23.0 or 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Cory Mattoon (husband) brings this appeal seeking review of a judgment of contempt entered on June 19, 2020, and from an order dated June 19, 2020, relating to his complaint for modification. As to the contempt judgment, the husband argues that the judge erred in holding him in contempt, in part because the judge overlooked his motion seeking more time to make the required payment to the guardian ad litem (GAL). As to the order on the complaint for modification, the husband argues that the judge should have found that there had been changes in circumstances warranting modification. We affirm the contempt judgment and dismiss the appeal from the modification order.
We do not consider the husband's argument that he has an inability to pay because it was raised for the first time in his reply brief and, even then, only cursorily. See Henderson v. Commissioners of Barnstable County, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 455, 459 (2000).
The husband is proceeding pro se in this appeal, and the deficiencies in his briefing, argument, and presentation of the record are such as to defeat the appeal. His arguments are not supported by reference to legal authority, do not include citation to the record, and do not rise to the level of appellate argument under Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). See Commonwealth v. DiRenzo, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 907, 909 (2001) (claims not supported by cogent reasoning or citation to authority deemed insufficient and waived). Recognizing his pro se status, however, we have carefully reviewed his arguments as well as the entire record submitted by him in an effort to attempt to reach the merits of his argument concerning the contempt judgment. However, given that the husband did not include the complaint for contempt, or the transcript of the hearing on that complaint, it is impossible to do so. See Mass. R. A. P. 18, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019); Shawmut Community Bank, N.A. v. Zagami, 411 Mass. 807, 811 (1992) ("[appellant] had an obligation to . . . provide the reviewing court with all relevant portions of the record"). On this record, the husband has failed to demonstrate that the judge abused her discretion in finding him in contempt -- particularly where it is undisputed that the husband did not make the required payment by the date ordered.
The husband's appeal from the order on his complaint for modification fails because it was filed prematurely. The June 19, 2020, order was not a final judgment regarding the modification; indeed, it left open the husband's request to modify his child support obligation. Because the June 19, 2020, order was not a final judgment on the husband's complaint for modification, this aspect of the appeal is not properly before us. See Lombardi v. Lombardi, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 407, 410 (2007). We note that the docket shows that judgment on the complaint for modification ultimately entered on May 12, 2021, and that the husband filed a notice of appeal from that judgment, but that the appeal was later dismissed.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on the complaint for contempt, and dismiss as premature the appeal from the order on the complaint for modification.
So ordered.
Wolohojian, Ditkoff & Walsh, JJ.
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.