Cohen v. Cohen
470 Mass. 708
| Mass. | 2015Background
- Parties divorced in California; Los Angeles County Superior Court issued child and spousal support orders after 1999 separation. Father moved to Massachusetts in 2002.
- California Department of Child Support Services requested registration of the 2003 California support order in Massachusetts under UIFSA in 2004 for enforcement only.
- Massachusetts DOR (child support division) brought contempt/enforcement proceedings in Probate and Family Court on behalf of the mother; parties entered multiple stipulated orders in Massachusetts requiring lump‑sum and periodic payments, contributions to college costs, uninsured medical expenses, and attorney fees.
- Probate and Family Court found the father in contempt in 2010 for failure to pay arrears, college and uninsured medical costs, and attorney fees; father moved under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 and later appealed.
- Central legal question: whether the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, as a responding tribunal under UIFSA, had jurisdiction to modify the California support order (versus being limited to enforcement) and whether contempt findings based on alleged modifications were valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Massachusetts court could modify California support order registered under UIFSA | Massachusetts orders and stipulations were valid and enforceable, including expanded obligations (college, medical) | Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction to modify because California retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under UIFSA | Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction to modify; those portions of the orders that changed amount/scope/duration were void |
| Whether Massachusetts could enforce the California order after registration | Registered order can be enforced in Massachusetts; enforcement included remedies like contempt and attorney's fees | Enforcement limited to terms of California order; cannot enforce obligations not in the California order | Responding tribunal may enforce the issuing State's order; enforcement of California terms was authorized |
| Whether contempt findings based on non‑California obligations were valid | Contempt rulings were valid because parties had stipulated in Massachusetts and father agreed | Contempt for violating void modifications is improper because court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose those obligations | Contempt based on void modifications reversed; contempt valid only for failures to comply with enforcement of the California order and related enforceable orders (e.g., attorney fees tied to enforcement) |
| Whether responding tribunal could award attorney's fees and costs | Fees and costs are permissible enforcement remedies under UIFSA when obligee prevails | Fee awards invalid if they arise from efforts to obtain impermissible modifications | Court may award attorney's fees and costs incurred in enforcing the registered order; father's record did not show fees were tied to improper modifications, so fee awards stand pending remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Child Support Enforcement Div. of Alaska v. Brenckle, 424 Mass. 214 (Mass. 1997) (explaining UIFSA continuing, exclusive jurisdiction principle)
- ROPT, Ltd. Partnership v. Katin, 431 Mass. 601 (Mass. 2000) (subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time; judgment void if court lacked jurisdiction)
- Harker v. Holyoke, 390 Mass. 555 (Mass. 1984) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver)
- Draper v. Burke, 450 Mass. 676 (Mass. 2008) (discussing limits on modification by responding tribunal under UIFSA)
- Matter of Dugan, 418 Mass. 185 (Mass. 1994) (limitations on collateral attack of final judgments; exceptions when another tribunal's authority would be infringed)