Opinion
11-P-441
03-08-2012
IKHLAS M.H. TALAMEH v. YOUSEF M. TALAMEH.
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 wife filed a complaint for divorce on April 9, 2009. During the course of the divorce proceedings, the husband was represented by several different attorneys, was found guilty of contempt for withdrawing over $407,000.00 in violation of the court's automatic restraining order and failed to comply with repeated discovery requests.
He did not appear at the pre-trial conference, nor did he appear at the final pretrial conference when, pursuant to the judge's earlier order, the case went to trial. On February 12, 2010, the judge issued a judgment of divorce and findings of fact, rationale and conclusions of law. The husband appealed.
At this pretrial conference, his attorney moved to withdraw on the ground that he was unable to produce any documents, that the husband ceased to cooperate with him and to show up for court on three occasions despite the attorney's explanation to him about the dire consequences that would result from his absence. The judge allowed the attorney's motion to withdraw; ordered the husband to appear at the rescheduled pretrial conference, warning that if he failed to appear, the matter would be called for immediate trial. The judge also advised wife's counsel to have proposed findings and judgment ready.
On February 11, 2010, the husband did not appear despite his representations to his new counsel the night before that he would do so; counsel's motion to withdraw was allowed.
At the trial that followed, the wife testified that she read the proposed findings and that she would testify accordingly.
In November of 2009, the husband was found in contempt for withdrawing funds in violation of the automatic restraining order. His argument that he did not violate this order is not before us as he did not appeal therefrom.
1. Jurisdiction. The husband argues that the court had no personal jurisdiction over him. He waived this claim in the Probate Court when his motion to dismiss was removed from the list at his request and he submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Thereafter, he filed various pleadings and appeared at several hearings, his argument is wholly without merit.
2. Division of assets and alimony. The husband challenges both the division of assets and the award of alimony to the wife. The husband did not appear at trial, nor cause any evidence to be presented on his behalf. On review of the state of the record properly before us, we discern no abuse of discretion or other error of law.
We do not consider any materials submitted by the husband which were not submitted at trial. Kavanagh v. Trustees of Boston University, 440 Mass. 195, 204 n.9 (2003).
--------
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Green, Brown & Agnes, JJ.),