Posts tagged "Vedensky"

Vedensky v. Vedensky (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-167-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   13-P-1392                                       Appeals Court   DMITRY VEDENSKY  vs.  VERONICA VEDENSKY. No. 13-P-1392. Middlesex.     September 8, 2014. – December 30, 2014.   Present:  Trainor, Rubin, & Sullivan, JJ.     Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Modification of judgment.  Evidence, Expert opinion, Earning capacity.       Complaint for divorce filed in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on December 19, 2006.   A complaint for modification, filed on June 10, 2011, was heard by Spencer M. Kagan, J., and a motion to amend the judgment was considered by him.     Mary Beth L. Sweeney (Catharine V. Blake with her) for the wife. Patricia A. DeJuneas for the husband.      SULLIVAN, J.  Veronica Vedensky, the former wife, appeals from an amended judgment of modification of the Probate and Family Court, which, among other things, orders her to pay to Dmitry Vedensky, the former husband, rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $ 635 per week for 104 weeks.[1]  See G. L. c. 208, §§ 37, 53.[2]  Veronica contends that the complaint for modification of alimony was barred by a previous complaint for modification of child support, and that the award of rehabilitative alimony was improper.  We conclude that the complaint for modification of alimony was not barred by the adjudication of the complaint for modification of child support.  We also conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding rehabilitative alimony, but erred in his consideration of the wife’s income from a second job which commenced after the entry of an “initial order.”  G. L. c. 208, § 54(b)(2), inserted by St. 2011, c. 124, § 3.  Accordingly, we vacate so much of the amended judgment of modification as applies to alimony and alimony-related conditions, and remand for further proceedings.  In all other respects, the amended judgment of modification is affirmed. 1.  Background.  We summarize the history of the case and the facts found by the judge, reserving certain details for discussion in connection with the specific issues raised.  The judgment of divorce nisi entered on March 14, 2007, incorporating a separation agreement signed by the parties on November 2, 2006.  The separation agreement, executed when both parties were fully employed, waived past and present alimony, but contained a reservation of rights to future alimony.  Veronica was also designated primary physical custodian and Dmitry was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $ 230 per […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 5, 2015 at 9:04 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,