Freddo v. Freddo
983 N.E.2d 1216
Mass. App. Ct.2013Background
- Freddo (father) appeals a summary judgment denying termination of his Florida-ordered child support.
- Florida judgment provided support terminates when children reach the age of majority; modification occurred in 1997 increasing the amount.
- All parties and children reside in Massachusetts; Florida relinquished jurisdiction as an adequate forum.
- Two youngest children were eighteen and twenty-one at the time of modification filing; Massachusetts law §28 provides post-eighteen support in certain circumstances.
- Massachusetts Probate and Family Court judge held §6-613 governs modification and allowed posteighteen support under Massachusetts law.
- Court holds the Florida duration is nonmodifiable and Massachusetts cannot extend the duration under UIFSA considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §6-613 permits modification to extend duration | Freddo argues §6-613 authorizes modification of the foreign order. | Freddo contends Florida duration can be altered by Massachusetts law under UIFSA. | No; duration remains nonmodifiable under issuing-state law. |
| Choice of law governing duration of child support | Freddo asserts Massachusetts law governs modification and duration. | Freddo argues Florida duration should control as the issuing state. | Florida law governs duration; Massachusetts cannot modify it. |
| Role of § 6-611(c) relative to § 6-613 | Freddo relies on §6-611(a) to permit modification and §6-613 broadly. | Mother argues constraints of §6-611(c) prevent modification of nonmodifiable aspects. | §6-611(c) bars modification of nonmodifiable aspects even where §6-613 could apply. |
| Impact of UIFSA comments and other states' decisions | Freddo cites harmonization with UIFSA 1996/2001 amendments and related cases. | Mother counters that Massachusetts has not adopted every later view; statutory text governs. | The duration of support is nonmodifiable per UIFSA intent and related commentary. |
| Effect of Florida relinquishing jurisdiction | Relinquishment does not create Massachusetts authority to modify duration. | N/A (court addresses jurisdictional basis). | Relinquishment does not permit modification of the original duration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hennepin County v. Hill, 777 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (duration cannot be modified when issuing-state law would not permit it)
- Matter of Scott, 160 N.H. 354 (2010) (Massachusetts law governs duration of a Massachusetts order in New Hampshire context)
- Cavallari v. Martin, 169 Vt. 210 (1999) (UIFSA substantive restriction would preclude modification of duration)
- Klingel v. Reill, 446 Mass. 80 (2006) (interprets UIFSA as consistent with its accompanying comments)
- Peddar v. Peddar, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 192 (1997) (FFI mechanism respecting full faith and credit and UIFSA framework)