Opinion
19-P-632
01-15-2020
Jennifer L. ROOT v. Theodore F. DUFFY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The husband, Theodore F. Duffy, and the wife, Jennifer L. Root, were divorced in 2010; their separation agreement was incorporated in the judgment of divorce nisi. Both parties filed complaints for contempt against the other, each alleging the other violated the separation agreement. The judge found neither the husband nor the wife in contempt. On appeal, the wife claims that the judge abused his discretion in finding that the husband was not in contempt. We affirm.
The husband did not appeal.
The wife's complaint for contempt alleged that the husband failed to pay 22.5 percent of his September 2018 bonus as required by their separation agreement. "[A] civil contempt finding [must] be supported by clear and convincing evidence of disobedience of a clear and unequivocal command." Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 838-839 (2009). We review the judge's conclusion on contempt for abuse of discretion, see K.A. v. T.R., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 554, 567 (2014), keeping in mind that we give "great deference to the judge's exercise of discretion." L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014). Furthermore, "it is plainly not an abuse of discretion simply because a reviewing court would have reached a different result." Id.
As the judge found, the wife failed to carry her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The parties agree that the amount in dispute is $1,985.33. The judge was entitled to credit the husband's understanding that the college and shared child-related expenses that the wife owed to him could offset the full amount he owed to her. See L.L., supra. Moreover, this was not the first time that the husband had offset sums owed to the wife by money she owed to him. Although the wife contends that such offsets must be adjudicated separately, the judge did not abuse his discretion in not doing so here. See L.L., supra. Cf. Rosen v. Rosen, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 677, 691-692 (2016). Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion.
The parties agree that 22.5 percent of the husband's bonus owed is $2,448.33. The husband submitted a check for $463 dollars, resulting in the difference stated in the text.
--------
Judgment affirmed.