M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- Citation
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- Parent Document
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-02-21
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7178777/mlm-v-em/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
- M.L.M. v. E.M., 123 N.E.3d 802 (2019)
Full Text
962 charsThe defendant notes that the plaintiff failed to disclose the pending divorce proceeding on the first page of the complaint. The complaint form asks whether divorce or certain other proceedings between the parties are pending. Although the plaintiff did not check the "Yes" box, neither did she check the "No" box. In any event, the plaintiff referenced the divorce proceedings in her affidavit, and plaintiff's counsel referred to those proceedings at the outset of the extension hearing, so the judge was clearly aware of them. Contrary to the defendant's suggestion (made for the first time on appeal), the plaintiff's failure to check the box on the complaint form did not require the judge either to find an improper motive or to disbelieve any of the plaintiff's testimony.9 Nor does the defendant cite any evidence to support his argument that the plaintiff received some unfair advantage by obtaining the c. 209A order while the divorce case was pending.