Posts tagged "1107817"

Lizardo v. Ortega (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-078-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   16-P-1070                                       Appeals Court   VIRGILIO LIZARDO  vs.  NAYSI ORTEGA.     No. 16-P-1070.   Essex.     March 7, 2017. – June 12, 2017.   Present:  Vuono, Meade, & Maldonado, JJ.     Divorce and Separation, Child support, Modification of judgment.  Parent and Child, Child support.  Public Welfare, Supplemental security income payments.     Complaint for support filed in the Essex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on April 27, 2006.   A complaint for modification, filed on August 27, 2015, was heard by Peter C. DiGangi, J.     Anna Schleelein Richardson (Eve Elliott also present) for the plaintiff. Brittany Williams, Assistant Attorney General, for the Department of Revenue.     MEADE, J.  The plaintiff, Virgilio Lizardo (father), appeals from a modification judgment of the Essex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department (Probate Court) that increased his child support payments to the defendant, Naysi Ortega (mother), for the parties’ younger daughter (daughter), who was born in June, 1995,[1] and that ordered him to pay the mother approximately $ 13,296 from a retroactive lump-sum distribution of Social Security disability income (SSDI) benefits, which was to be applied to the father’s child support arrearage.  The father contends that the judge (1) erred in ordering him to make a payment from his lump-sum SSDI benefits that exceeded the limit imposed by the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b) (2012); (2) erred in ordering postminority child support absent written or oral findings regarding the factors set forth in the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines (2013) (guidelines); (3) infringed on his equal protection rights by mandating postminority support notwithstanding that married parents have no such financial obligation; and (4) erred in failing to dismiss his complaint for modification and threatening him with contempt proceedings.  For the reasons that follow, we reverse the portion of the judgment that ordered the father to make a child support arrearage payment to the mother in excess of the garnishment limitation imposed by the CCPA.  In all other respects, we affirm. Background.  The record is largely silent regarding the history between the mother and the father, a veteran of the United States Army.  It appears that they once were married but subsequently were divorced.  A complaint for support pursuant to G. L. c. 209, § 32F, was filed in the Probate Court on April 27, 2006, and the resulting […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 12, 2017 at 2:29 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,