Skawski, et al. v. Greenfield Investors Property Development, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-018-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 13-P-1947 Appeals Court MICHAEL SKAWSKI & others[1] vs. GREENFIELD INVESTORS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC.[2] No. 13-P-1947. February 27, 2015. Jurisdiction, Land Court, Housing Court. Land Court, Jurisdiction. Housing Court, Jurisdiction. Upon a joint motion by the defendant, Greenfield Investors Property Development, LLC (Property Development), and the plaintiffs (abutters), a judge of the Western Division of the Housing Court Department reported, for further review and determination pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 64(a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1403 (1996), her order denying Property Development’s motion to dismiss. Property Development challenges the Housing Court’s jurisdiction over the abutters’ claim. Relying on our holding in Buccaneer Dev., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lenox, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 40 (2012) (Buccaneer), Property Development argues that with the enactment of G. L. c. 185, § 3A, establishing an expedited permit session in the Land Court for large-scale development projects and grant of concurrent jurisdiction to the Superior Court,[3] the Legislature divested the Housing Court of jurisdiction over such matters. It asserts, therefore, that the judge erred in denying its motion to dismiss the abutters’ claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree and reverse the order denying Property Development’s motion to dismiss. Background. The planning board of Greenfield issued a special permit approving Property Development’s plan to develop a 135,000-square-foot retail facility within the town of Greenfield.[4] The abutters filed an appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, in the Western Division of the Housing Court Department, challenging the issuance of a special permit to Property Development. Property Development and its codefendants (see note 2, supra) subsequently filed a joint motion with the Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court (CJAM)[5] to have the matter transferred pursuant to G. L. c. 185, § 3A, to the permit session of the Land Court. The abutters opposed the transfer. The CJAM denied the motion, and litigation proceeded in the Western Division of the Housing Court Department. Following our decision in Buccaneer, supra, Property Development moved to dismiss the abutters’ action, asserting that the Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The Housing Court judge denied Property Development’s motion to dismiss and conditioned that denial upon approval from the Chief Justice of the Housing Court Department to transfer the matter to the Superior Court. To obtain that approval, the judge sent a letter requesting that the case “be […]
Categories: News Tags: 1101815, Development, Greenfield, Investors, Lawyers, Property, Skawski, Weekly
Commonwealth v. Sheridan (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-032-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11543 COMMONWEALTH vs. MATTHEW J. SHERIDAN. Norfolk. November 6, 2014. – February 27, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Controlled Substances. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Probable cause. Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Threshold police inquiry, Probable cause, Inevitable discovery, Plain view, Search incident to lawful arrest. Threshold Police Inquiry. Probable Cause. Complaint received and sworn to in the Quincy Division of the District Court Department on June 21, 2011. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Robert P. Ziemian, J. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Gants, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Paul R. Rudof, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Pamela Alford, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. LENK, J. In the early morning hours of June 21, 2011, police officers stopped the defendant, Matthew J. Sheridan, for driving a minivan with an unilluminated headlight. During the stop, the officers saw in the vehicle a portion of what an officer identified as “about a [one]-ounce bag” of marijuana, protruding from under a rumpled T-shirt lying on the floor between the vehicle’s two front seats. The officers ordered the defendant out of the vehicle, handcuffed him, and conducted a search of the minivan. Lifting the T-shirt, an officer found, in addition to the bag previously partially seen, another one-ounce bag of marijuana, and a third, smaller bag of marijuana. The defendant was arrested and taken to the police station. After he was booked on charges of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, officers seized and searched his cellular telephone, finding several text messages that they identified as consistent with sales of marijuana. The defendant moved to suppress the marijuana seized from his vehicle and the text messages found on his telephone. In Massachusetts, “possession of one ounce or less of marihuana [is] only . . . a civil offense,” punishable by a “civil penalty of one hundred dollars and forfeiture of the marihuana.” G. L. c. 94C, § 32L. Because it is not a crime, police observation of one ounce or less of marijuana is […]
Commonwealth v. Ramos (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-031-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11680 COMMONWEALTH vs. ALEX RAMOS. Essex. November 4, 2014. – February 26, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Motor Vehicle, Receiving stolen motor vehicle. Receiving Stolen Goods. Search and Seizure, Exigent circumstances. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Evidence, Telephone conversation. Telephone. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 2, 2007. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Howard J. Whitehead, J., and the case was tried before David A. Lowy, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Todd C. Pomerleau for the defendant. Quentin Weld, Assistant District Attorney (Elin H. Graydon, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. DUFFLY, J. The defendant was indicted on a charge of receiving a stolen motor vehicle, G. L. c. 266, § 28; a codefendant was indicted on charges of receiving a stolen motor vehicle and of receiving stolen property with a value exceeding $ 250. The defendant sought to suppress evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of his garage. A Superior Court judge, who was not the trial judge, denied the motion, concluding that the warrantless search of the defendant’s garage was permissible due to exigent circumstances, and also that the search was permissible under what he termed an “accomplice sweep” exception to the warrant requirement, a concept that has not been adopted in the Commonwealth. Following a joint trial, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant and acquitted the codefendant. The defendant appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. On appeal, the defendant claims error in the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the warrantless search of his garage, and the admission in evidence of inculpatory statements made during recorded telephone conversations between the defendant and the codefendant. Additionally, the defendant argues that the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We conclude that there was no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress because police entry into the garage was justified based on exigent circumstances, there was no error in the admission of recordings of the jailhouse telephone calls, and the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction. Evidence at […]
Drummey, et al. v. Town of Falmouth, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-017-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 13-P-1498 Appeals Court TODD DRUMMEY & others[1] vs. TOWN OF FALMOUTH & others.[2] No. 13-P-1498. Barnstable. September 5, 2014. – February 26, 2015. Present: Cypher, Grasso, & Fecteau, JJ.[3] Zoning, By-law, Special permit, Governmental use, Permitted use. Municipal Corporations, By-laws and ordinances. Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 21, 2011. After consolidation, the cases were heard by Robert C. Rufo, J. Christopher G. Senie for the plaintiffs. Frank K. Duffy, Jr., Town Counsel, for the defendants. CYPHER, J. We are asked to decide in this case whether the town of Falmouth (town) was required to obtain a special permit from the zoning board of appeals of Falmouth (ZBA) for the installation of a wind turbine on town land. We conclude that, under the town’s zoning by-law (by-law), a special permit was required. Background. The plaintiffs are Falmouth residents who live between 1,300 and 3,200 feet from a wind turbine known as “Wind 1,”[4] installed in 2009 on town land at its wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). Alleging significant distress from sound pressures and noise from the operation of Wind 1, Neil Andersen and Elizabeth Andersen (collectively, the Andersen plaintiffs), on August 25, 2010, sought an enforcement action by the town’s building commissioner asserting that the town was in violation of the by-law by operating Wind 1 without a special permit. The building commissioner denied their request in a letter dated September 24, 2010, and the Andersen plaintiffs appealed to the ZBA, which affirmed the building commissioner in a decision dated March 3, 2011. Separate actions for relief under G. L. c. 40A, § 17, were filed in the Superior Court by the Andersen plaintiffs and by the remaining plaintiffs. After consolidation of the cases below, and a bench trial, a judge on June 18, 2013, ordered that judgments enter affirming the decision of the ZBA.[5] Discussion. At trial, the plaintiffs argued that the building commissioner and the ZBA incorrectly interpreted the by-law to allow the issuance of a building permit for Wind 1 without a special permit, citing § 240-166 of the by-law which provides that a petitioner may apply for a special permit to allow construction of a windmill.[6] The judge, however, deferred to the opinion of the building commissioner, affirmed by the ZBA, that the by-law “does not apply in […]
City of Worcester v. Civil Service Commission (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-016-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12-P-1844 Appeals Court CITY OF WORCESTER vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & another.[1] No. 12-P-1844. Suffolk. December 6, 2013. – February 26, 2015. Present: Fecteau, Sullivan, & Maldonado, JJ. Practice, Civil, Review respecting civil service. Civil Service, Police, Decision of Civil Service Commission, Termination of employment, Judicial review. Administrative Law, Hearing, Judicial review. Municipal Corporations, Police. Police, Discharge. Public Employment, Police, Termination. Statute, Construction. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 22, 2010. The case was heard by Carol S. Ball, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings. Leo J. Peloquin for the plaintiff. Robert L. Quinan, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Civil Service Commission. Meghan C. Cooper for Leon Dykas. MALDONADO, J. The city of Worcester (city) appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court upholding the determination of the Civil Service Commission (commission) that an appointing authority may not suspend or terminate a tenured employee for the employee’s failure to testify at a hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 41. The city contends that because § 41 does not explicitly establish a statutory testimonial privilege and because police department rules and regulations require officers to provide truthful testimony when requested, the commission exceeded its authority and improperly intruded upon the city’s right to enforce its rules of conduct. We conclude that the commission’s determination that, because the § 41 hearing is held for the protection of the tenured employee and not the appointing authority, the tenured employee may not be sanctioned for the employee’s failure to testify at his § 41 hearing is consistent with the statutory purpose of § 41 and entitled to substantial deference. Therefore, we affirm. Factual background. The relevant facts drawn from the administrative record are undisputed. Leon Dykas was a tenured civil service employee, working as a police officer for the Worcester police department (department). In 2008, Dykas was purported to have engaged in noncriminal misconduct involving his ex-wife in violation of a “Last Chance Settlement Agreement” into which he had entered with the department.[2] Dykas cooperated with the department’s internal investigation and attended an investigatory interview at the department’s bureau of professional standards (BOPS) as ordered. Following review of the BOPS report and a transcript of Dykas’s interview, the chief of police, Gary Gemme, placed Dykas on paid administrative leave pending completion of […]
Commonwealth v. DiCicco (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-030-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11672 COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT DiCICCO. Middlesex. November 4, 2014. – February 26, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Hines, JJ. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Practice, Criminal, New trial, Postconviction relief. Evidence, Expert opinion, Scientific test. Witness, Expert. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 27, 1983. A motion for postconviction relief, filed on November 28, 2007, was heard by Diane M. Kottmyer, J., and a motion for additional funds for the services of an expert witness was considered by her. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. David J. Nathanson (Michael A. Nam-Krane with him) for the defendant. Hallie White Speight, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Sara A. Colb, for New England Innocence Project, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Ira L. Gant & Lisa M. Kavanaugh, Committee for Public Counsel Services, & Elizabeth A. Lunt, for Committee for Public Counsel Services Innocence Program & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. CORDY, J. In 1984, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape. In July, 2005, the Superior Court clerk’s office in Middlesex County located the trial exhibits, including the victim’s blue jeans and underpants. They had been stored in plastic bags since the trial. Beginning in January, 2006, the defendant filed a series of motions to test the evidence for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). These motions were granted and the State police crime laboratory (crime laboratory) and Orchid Cellmark (Cellmark), an independent laboratory, performed DNA testing on the victim’s clothing. The defendant subsequently moved for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (1995), relying on the affidavit of Eric Carita (Carita), a forensic analyst employed by the Connecticut State laboratory,[1] who opined that the defendant was excluded as the source of the male DNA on the victim’s jeans based on “potential alleles.”[2] In July, 2010, a judge in the Superior Court (motion judge) held a two-day evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion for postconviction relief, at which Carita and Christine Lemire, the crime laboratory analyst who performed the DNA analysis,[3] testified. Subsequently, on March 28, 2011, the judge denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial in a detailed memorandum of […]
Commonwealth v. Cullity (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-029-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11728 COMMONWEALTH vs. TIMOTHY CULLITY. February 24, 2015. Controlled Substances. Evidence, Constructive possession. Motor Vehicle. Search and Seizure, Threshold police inquiry, Motor vehicle. Threshold Police Inquiry. After a jury-waived trial in the District Court, Timothy Cullity was convicted of possession of a class B substance, namely, “PCP.” A panel of the Appeals Court concluded that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish constructive possession and, in an unpublished decision pursuant to its rule 1:28, reversed and directed the entry of judgment for Cullity.[1] Commonwealth v. Cullity, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2014). We allowed the Commonwealth’s application for further appellate review, limited to issues concerning the sufficiency of the evidence.[2] 469 Mass. 1106 (2014). We affirm. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt’” (emphasis in original). Commonwealth v. Romero, 464 Mass. 648, 652 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). “Proof of constructive possession requires the Commonwealth to show ‘knowledge coupled with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and control.” Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 452 Mass. 142, 146 (2008), quoting Commonwealth v. Boria, 440 Mass. 416, 418 (2003). At issue here is the sufficiency of the evidence that Cullity intended to exercise dominion and control over a bag of PCP found in a vehicle in which he was a passenger.[3] The evidence at trial established the following. The sole witness was State Trooper Nicholas Peter Fiore. At about 7 P.M. on November 5, 2010, Fiore saw a motor vehicle with a broken headlight in Chelsea. He stopped the vehicle, approached the driver’s side door, and began speaking with the driver. He immediately detected a “very strong odor of something that appeared to be . . . a freshly burnt substance” emanating from the vehicle. Fiore requested the driver’s license and registration; she eventually produced her license. He also asked her about the odor, but she did not respond. Cullity was in the front passenger’s seat of the vehicle, without his seatbelt. Fiore observed that he had watery, bloodshot eyes and that he appeared lethargic. Fiore had to request Cullity’s identification three times […]
DeMayo v. Quinn (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-015-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 14-P-398 Appeals Court CAROL DEMAYO vs. DAVID QUINN. No. 14-P-398. Berkshire. November 3, 2014. – February 24, 2015. Present: Green, Wolohojian, & Blake, JJ. Harassment Prevention. Civil Harassment. Protective Order. Words, “Specific person.” Complaint for protection from harassment filed in the Northern Berkshire Division of the District Court Department on December 13, 2013. The case was heard by Michael J. Ripps, J. Mark J. Pasquariello for the defendant. BLAKE, J. On December 17, 2013, following an ex parte hearing, a harassment prevention order (order) was issued against the defendant pursuant to G. L. c. 258E. A further evidentiary hearing was held, at which the plaintiff testified, and the order was extended for one year. The defendant appeals from the extension of the order, claiming that his conduct was neither “willful or malicious,” nor “aimed at a specific person,” as required by the statute. We agree as to the latter point, and accordingly vacate the order. 1. Background. The undisputed facts are as follows. The plaintiff owns a horse boarding facility; she also resides at the same property with her husband. In late August, 2013, the plaintiff discovered that particular items in the horse barn were either missing or had been rearranged. When the episodes continued, and a horse’s allergy medication and needles disappeared, the plaintiff set up a video camera and contacted the police. The police then set up their own surveillance camera, which captured an unauthorized individual, eventually identified as the defendant, engaging in various activities inside the barn on five different occasions. The videotape recording of those incidents showed the defendant taking items from the barn’s refrigerator, rearranging hay bales, and throwing items into a horse’s stall.[1] Although the plaintiff is not the legal owner of the horse involved, the facility was responsible for its care. 2. Legal requirements. “An Act relative to harassment prevention orders,” codified as G. L. c. 258E, was enacted to: (1) provide protection to victims of sexual assault, stalking, and criminal harassment that is unavailable under the domestic abuse prevention law, G. L. c. 209A; and (2) make violations of these orders punishable as a crime. Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58, 60 (2014).[2] In order to obtain a c. 258E order, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she is suffering from harassment. ”Harassment,” insofar as relevant here, […]
Commonwealth v. Torres (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-028-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11771 COMMONWEALTH vs. RAMON TORRES. February 23, 2015. Controlled Substances. Constitutional Law, Plea, Conduct of government agents. Due Process of Law, Plea, Presumption. Practice, Criminal, Plea, Conduct of government agents, Presumptions and burden of proof. Evidence, Guilty plea, Certificate of drug analysis, Presumptions and burden of proof. Notary Public. In January, 2008, the defendant, Ramon Torres, pleaded guilty to distribution of a class B substance, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32A, and was sentenced to serve one year in a house of correction. In April, 2013, in light of problems that surfaced at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory (Hinton drug lab or lab), and with Annie Dookhan in particular, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for a new trial.[1] After a hearing, a judge in the District Court, who was also the judge who had accepted the defendant’s guilty plea, denied the motion. The defendant appealed, and we transferred his appeal to this court on our own motion. According to the Brockton police department arrest report, the defendant was arrested after selling an off-white rock-like substance to an undercover police officer. Both a field test, conducted by the police, and a subsequent test at the Hinton drug lab indicated that the substance was cocaine. The certificate of drug analysis associated with the lab testing was signed by assistant analysts Kate Corbett and Della Saunders. Dookhan signed the certificate as a notary public. We recently considered, in several cases, the effect of Dookhan’s misconduct on a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea on the basis of that misconduct. See Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336, 337 (2014), and cases cited. In Scott, we adopted the two-part analysis set forth in Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278, 290 (1st Cir. 2006), for cases involving alleged government misconduct leading to a guilty plea. Scott, supra at 346. The first prong of the Ferrara analysis requires a defendant to show that egregious government misconduct “preceded the entry of his guilty plea and that it is the sort of conduct that implicates the defendant’s due process rights.” Id. at 347, citing Ferrara, supra at 290, 291. The second prong requires a defendant to demonstrate that “the misconduct influenced his decision to plead guilty or . . . […]
Cohen v. Cohen (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-027-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11594 M. DAVID COHEN vs. SHELLEY COHEN. Middlesex. October 9, 2014. – February 23, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Contempt. Divorce and Separation, Foreign judgment, Child support, Attorney’s fees. Probate Court, Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, Child support, Probate Court. Parent and Child, Child support. Registration for enforcement of a foreign order of support filed in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on March 31, 2004. A complaint for contempt was heard by Randy J. Kaplan, J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Anna S. Richardson for the father. DUFFLY, J. This case requires that we resolve the extent to which the Probate and Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to enforce or modify a support order issued by a California court in connection with proceedings dissolving the marriage of M. David Cohen (father) and Shelley Cohen (mother). After the parties separated in 1999, a Los Angeles County Superior Court entered a judgment establishing monthly child and spousal support payments payable by the father to the mother. The father moved to Massachusetts in 2002. In 2004, the California support order was registered in the Probate and Family Court, upon request of the Los Angeles County Department of Child Services (California CSSD). Pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), which has been adopted by both California and Massachusetts, Massachusetts courts thus acquired jurisdiction to enforce the support order. See Cal. Fam. Code, §§ 4900, 4950, 4951 (West 2013); G. L. c. 209D, §§ 6-601, 6-602. The child support division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR), acting on behalf of the mother, initiated contempt proceedings against the father in the Probate and Family Court, and a Probate and Family Court judge subsequently issued multiple orders that sought to enforce the California support order. The orders incorporated the parties’ stipulated agreements, which, inter alia, obligated the father to pay the child’s uninsured medical expenses and to contribute to her college education costs; neither of these items had been included in the order of the California court. In 2010, a Probate and Family Court judge found the father in contempt for having failed to make payments in the amounts […]