Buxton v. Buxton

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Buxton v. Buxton

379 N.E.2d 591, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 916

DecidedAugust 22, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 379 N.E.2d 591 (Buxton v. Buxton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buxton v. Buxton, 379 N.E.2d 591, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 916 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

1. There was evidence concerning the respective contributions of the parties (see Putnam v. Putnam, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 15 [1977]) which supported the portion of the judgment nisi which ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $3,500 when she should sell her house or within one year of judgment, whichever should first occur. For the reasons stated in Hager v. Hager, ante 903 (1978), the judge’s failure to make his findings explicit is not ground for reversal. 2. Because the order or judgment entered on October 8, 1976, reinstated the portion of the judgment nisi which was the subject of the plaintiffs "motion for further hearing,” we need not and do not decide whether the judge erred in allowing that motion. 3. The judgment nisi and the judgment or order dated October 8, 1978, are affirmed. The appeal from the order dated July 16,1976, allowing the "motion for further hearing” is treated as waived.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1. There was evidence concerning the respective contributions of the parties (see Putnam v. Putnam, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 15 [1977]) which supported the portion of the judgment nisi which ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $3,500 when she should sell her house or within one year of judgment, whichever should first occur. For the reasons stated in Hager v. Hager, ante 903 (1978), the judge’s failure to make his findings explicit is not ground for reversal. 2. Because the order or judgment entered on October 8, 1976, reinstated the portion of the judgment nisi which was the subject of the plaintiffs "motion for further hearing,” we need not and do not decide whether the judge erred in allowing that motion. 3. The judgment nisi and the judgment or order dated October 8, 1978, are affirmed. The appeal from the order dated July 16,1976, allowing the "motion for further hearing” is treated as waived.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 N.E.2d 591, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buxton-v-buxton-massappct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack