Posts tagged "Rodman"

Rodman v. Rodman (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-013-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11726   GEORGE J. RODMAN  vs.  ROBERTA RODMAN.       Norfolk.     October 6, 2014. – January 30, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.   Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Modification of judgment, Separation agreement.  Statute, Retroactive application.       Complaint for divorce filed in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on March 12, 2008.   Following the filing of a complaint for modification on November 14, 2013, a question of law was reported by Gregory V. Roach, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     David E. Cherny (Thomas D. Ritter with him) for the husband. Michael P. Doherty for the wife.     DUFFLY, J.  The former husband, George J. Rodman, brought a complaint for modification in the Probate and Family Court, seeking to terminate certain obligations to his former wife, Roberta Rodman, arising under a separation agreement the parties had entered into in connection with their divorce.  The divorce judgment nisi, which entered in April, 2008, incorporated and merged into that judgment the provision at issue here, obligating George to pay alimony to Roberta in the amount of $ 1,539 per week.[1]  During the pendency of the modification proceeding, George filed a motion seeking immediate termination of the alimony payments on the ground that he had reached “full retirement age” as defined by G. L. c. 208, § 48, which was enacted by St. 2011, c. 124 (alimony reform act or act).  The motion asserted that the alimony reform act became effective March 1, 2012, and that George therefore was entitled to termination of the alimony order pursuant to G. L. c. 208, § 49 (f) (retirement provision), which provides that “general alimony orders shall terminate upon the payor attaining the full retirement age.” A Probate and Family Court judge denied the motion and then reported the following question to the Appeals Court: “Whether or not [G. L. c. 208, § 49 (f),] is to be applied retroactively to judgments entered before March 1, 2012.”   We granted the plaintiff’s application for direct appellate review. The plaintiff presents an argument that differs somewhat from that in Chin v. Merriot, ante at     (Chin), concerning whether, and in what circumstances, the retirement provision may be applied to modify an alimony judgment that was in existence when the alimony […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 30, 2015 at 8:51 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,

Rodman, et al. v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-132-14)

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-223                                        Appeals Court   DONALD E. RODMAN & others[1]  vs.  COMMONWEALTH.     No. 12-P-223. Norfolk.     April 9, 2014. – October 7, 2014.   Present:  Vuono, Meade, & Carhart, JJ.     Eminent Domain, Damages, Expert testimony.  Damages, Eminent domain.  Evidence, Expert opinion, Value.  Value.  Practice, Civil, Eminent domain proceeding.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 4, 2002.   The case was tried before R. Malcolm Graham, J., and a motion for a new trial was considered by him.     Thomas J. Carey, Jr. (Bradley C. Pinta with him) for the plaintiffs. John D. Hampton, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.     CARHART, J.  In 2001, the Commonwealth, through its Department of Highways, took by eminent domain nearly five acres of the plaintiffs’ 57.7 acre parcel in the town of Foxboro (town), along with an easement for drainage over an additional 1,112 square feet.  As is their right pursuant to G. L. c. 79, §§ 8A and 14, after receiving a pro tanto award, the plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a greater damages award.  Following trial, the jury awarded an amount less than the pro tanto award and the plaintiffs were ordered to repay the difference.  Because we conclude that certain evidentiary rulings prevented the plaintiffs from offering relevant evidence of value, we vacate the judgment and reverse the order denying the motion for new trial. Background.  The plaintiffs’ property is located on Route 1 south, across from Gillette Stadium, home of the New England Patriots football team.  Approximately fourteen acres on the northern portion of the property has been used for many years as a “temporary” parking lot.  The remaining acres were undeveloped at the time of the taking.  Prior to the taking, the plaintiffs’ property contained 1,800 feet of frontage on Route 1 south, a State road.  The portion of the property taken included some 1,620 feet of the Route 1 frontage.  Only 170 feet of original frontage on the northern portion of the property and nine feet of original frontage on the southern portion of the property remain.  The zoning district in which the property is located requires an area of 80,000 square feet and 300 feet of frontage for buildable lots. The property taken was used to complete an elevated ramp extending from the Gillette Stadium property, crossing […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 7, 2014 at 3:15 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,