Fehrm-Cappuccino v. Cappuccino (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-152-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   15-P-484                                        Appeals Court   CAROLYN FEHRM-CAPPUCCINO  vs.  GARY J. CAPPUCCINO.     No. 15-P-484.   Norfolk.     April 11, 2016. – October 18, 2016.   Present:  Cypher, Agnes, & Massing, JJ.     Divorce and Separation, Modification of judgment, Child support.  Parent and Child, Child support.  Contempt.  Practice, Civil, Contempt.       Complaint for divorce filed in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on July 14, 2008.   A complaint for modification, filed on January 12, 2012, and a complaint for contempt, filed on November 20, 2013, were heard by George F. Phelan, J.     Karen W. Stuntz for the mother. Jonathan E. Fields for the father.     CYPHER, J.  In this appeal from a “judgment on complaint for modification and complaint for contempt” entered by a judge  of the Probate and Family Court on February 21, 2014, Carolyn Fehrm-Cappuccino (mother), the former wife of Gary J. Cappuccino (father), challenges the downward modification of child support and the lack of a contempt finding against the father.  We address the mother’s arguments in turn. Modification.  The parties were divorced on January 4, 2010, pursuant to a judgment of divorce that incorporated their separation agreement.  Pursuant to the separation agreement, the mother received primary physical custody of the parties’ four children and the father was required to pay weekly child support of $ 577.  The first two years of the father’s child support payments were deemed “prepaid” in exchange for the mother’s receipt of the marital home, with the father’s weekly child support payments scheduled to “resume” in January, 2012.  On January 12, 2012, the father filed a complaint for modification of his child support obligation.  On February 21, 2014, a judge of the Probate and Family Court entered a judgment reducing the father’s weekly child support obligation to $ 371, retroactive to January 24, 2012.  On appeal, the mother challenges the reduced child support amount, asserting that it was the result of several errors made by the judge when determining the parties’ respective incomes.[1] Exclusion of the father’s rental income.  The mother first contends that the judge improperly excluded the father’s rental income from Canton Lanes Limited Partnership (Canton Lanes) of approximately $ 507 per week when calculating child support.[2] The Child Support Guidelines (guidelines) “have presumptive application to actions to modify existing [child support] orders.”  […]

Read more...