CONGHUI ZHENG v. HONG LIANG SHEN (And a Companion Case).

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 23-P-1468
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-1468 24-P-295

CONGHUI ZHENG

vs.

HONG LIANG SHEN (and a companion case1).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Hong Liang Shen (husband), the former husband of Conghui

Zheng (wife), appeals from the judgment on his complaint for

contempt dated September 29, 2023, and from the second amended

further judgment on contempt, issued by a Probate and Family

Court judge. We affirm.

Background. Following a trial, the parties divorced in

December 2022. As relevant here, the judgment awarded the

former marital home to the wife provided that she pay the

husband $85,309, representing one-half of the equity in the

1 Conghui Zheng vs. Hong Liang Shen. home, by March 15, 2023.2 In the event the wife could not make

the required payment by that date, the judgment ordered that the

property would be sold, the husband would receive $85,309, and

the remaining sale proceeds would be awarded to the wife. The

judgment also required the wife to close the parties' business

bank account within thirty days of the judgment and transfer

one-half of the balance to the husband. Neither party appealed

from the divorce judgment (divorce judgment).3

1. First round of contempt proceedings. In January 2023,

the wife decided to sell the home, and the parties signed a

listing agreement with an agreed-upon realtor. On April 12,

2023, they executed an amended purchase and sale agreement

(P&S), with a closing date scheduled for April 26, 2023. On the

closing date, the husband executed, and his attorney notarized,

a seller's limited power of attorney with a typewritten notation

stating that "[t]he disbursement of proceeds shall solely

comprise paying off mortgage and broker fee and taxes and other

necessary fee adjustment for closing. No disbursement shall be

made to [the wife] and [the husband] at closing time." The

husband's attorney then sent an e-mail message to the wife's

2 Pretrial, the parties stipulated to the fair market value.

3 The husband's motion to amend the divorce judgment was denied without a hearing. A panel of this court affirmed that decision. See Zheng v. Shen, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2024).

2 counsel stating that the husband would "sign the [con]veyance of

the deed under the condition that the sales proceeds be held in

escrow account." Due to the restrictions placed on the sale

proceeds, the wife withheld the deed, and the sale did not take

place.

On April 28, 2023, the husband filed a complaint for

contempt against the wife, alleging that she violated the

divorce judgment by, among other things, refusing to deliver the

deed and place the sale proceeds in an escrow account, and by

failing to pay him his share of the business account balance.4

On June 29, 2023, the wife filed a complaint for contempt

against the husband, alleging that he violated the divorce

judgment by failing to execute the documents necessary to

complete the sale. After a hearing on both complaints, the

judge found neither party in contempt but determined that the

sale did not take place "[a]s a result of the Husband's actions

in seeking to restrict the disbursement of the sale proceeds,"

which "served to frustrate and/or delay the sale of the marital

4 The husband alleged the following violations by the wife: "refusing to deliver[] the deed to the buyer under the P&S; refusing to place the proceeds in an escrow account to have a final account for taxes; the accounting of the business account; and the calculation of $85,309 does not comply with the current law, a rule 60 motion has been filed."

3 home."5 Separate judgments dated September 29, 2023, entered on

the respective complaints for contempt; the judgment on the

husband's complaint required the parties to cooperate and

effectuate the sale in a timely manner; follow all

recommendations of the realtor, including any terms to be

included in the P&S; and execute "forthwith" the documents

necessary to sell the home and transfer title (September 29

contempt judgment).

2. Second contempt proceedings. The wife's counsel

arranged for the realtor to relist the home, and on October 10,

2023, the realtor sent the parties a new listing agreement

containing terms identical to the prior agreement. Following

the husband's delay in signing the new agreement, the wife filed

a complaint for contempt on October 19, 2023, alleging that the

husband's failure to sign "forthwith" violated the September 29

contempt judgment. The husband signed the listing agreement on

October 30, 2023; however, the parties could not agree on a

listing price. After two hearings, the judge issued an order

dated December 19, 2023, requiring the parties to list the home

for $317,100, based on the realtor's recommendation. On January

3, 2024, the realtor presented another P&S for the parties to

5 The wife did not appeal the judgment finding the husband not guilty of contempt.

4 sign, which was to set expire in two days. The husband signed

the agreement the same day, but included a "special condition"

stating:

"The sales price was ordered by Berkshire Probate court in a second Contempt hearing based on its Judgment on [the husband's] Complaint of Contempt; and [the husband] has appealed . . . whether the judgment on his complaint of Contempt by the Berkshire Probate Court is valid or not may take many months to be determined by the Appeals [C]ourt . . . please consult with your attorney."

When the husband declined to remove the "special condition," the

wife filed an emergency motion requesting the appointment of a

disinterested person to sign the P&S in the husband's stead.

See Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 70.6 After a hearing on the motion,

the judge found the husband in contempt of the September 29

judgment:

"by i) failing to execute a listing agreement which was presented to him on or about October 10, 2023 'forthwith' (footnote omitted); ii) failing to execute a purchase and sale agreement which is scheduled to expire on January 5, 2024; and iii) attempting to insert terms into said Agreement that were not recommended by the realtor (footnote omitted), which would serve to delay or frustrate the sale of the former marital home."

The husband timely appeals from the September 29 contempt

judgment in favor of the wife and the second amended further

6 Although the wife titled the motion as an "Emergency Motion Pursuant to Massachusetts Civil Procedure Rule 70," the judge construed this as a motion pursuant to Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 70, which is identical to Mass. R. Civ. P. 70, 365 Mass. 836 (1974).

5 judgment on contempt entered nunc pro tunc to January 4, 2024.

Discussion. 1. Contempt. "[A] civil contempt finding

[must] be supported by clear and convincing evidence of

disobedience of a clear and unequivocal command." Birchall,

petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 853 (2009). We review a judge's

ruling on a complaint for contempt only for abuse of discretion.

See Voorhis v. Relle, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 46, 54 (2020).

a. September 2023 contempt judgment. i. Contempt

finding. The husband argues that the judge erred in finding the

wife not guilty of civil contempt. We are not persuaded.

The judge found that the divorce judgment did not contain a

clear order requiring delivery of a deed to the buyer. To the

extent the husband argues that this finding is clearly

erroneous, we are not persuaded, because the finding has ample

support in the record. See Martinez v. Lynn Hous. Auth., 94

Mass. App. Ct. 702, 706 (2019). The divorce judgment required

the wife to pay the husband a sum certain, but it is silent as

to any obligation to execute or deliver closing documents.

Indeed, the judge noted, and the record reflects, that it was

the husband's own actions that prevented the sale from taking

Similarly, the divorce judgment required the wife to close

the business account within thirty days, but it did not specify

6 a date for payment to the husband. See Bock v. Board of

Registration in Med., 492 Mass. 1024, 1025 (2023) ("[W]e

determine whether a party is in contempt by looking to the

precise words of the order itself" [citation omitted]). Because

the judgment did not contain specific timelines for compliance,

the judge did not abuse her discretion in finding the wife not

guilty of civil contempt.7

ii. Other arguments. The husband advances two additional

arguments, neither of which was raised nor argued below, and

therefore are not properly before us. See Carey v. New England

Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 285 (2006). Even if they were,

neither would offer the husband the relief he seeks.

The husband first argues that the wife was judicially

estopped from selling the home prior to March 15, 2023.

"Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that precludes a

party from asserting a position in one legal proceeding that is

contrary to a position it had previously asserted in another

proceeding" (citation omitted). Otis v. Arbella Mut. Ins. Co.,

443 Mass. 634, 639-640 (2005). Where the divorce judgment

provided the wife an option to sell the marital home if she

could not pay the husband what he was owed, doing so to comply

7 We note that the wife, as required by the divorce judgment, paid the husband his share of the business account prior to the contempt hearing.

7 with her payment obligations was not a position "mutually

exclusive" of her efforts to retain the home during the divorce

proceedings. See id. at 640-641. The fact that the wife took a

different position during the pendency of the divorce

proceedings did not require the judge to apply the doctrine

against the wife.

The husband also contends that the judge abused her

discretion by failing to correct "cleric[al] errors" in the

divorce judgment.8 His argument is actually a disguised claim

for modification,9 and it is well settled that property division

is not subject to modification. See Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass.

882, 886 (2000); Drapek v. Drapek, 399 Mass. 240, 244 (1987).

b. Second amended further judgment on contempt. The

husband argues that the judge erred in finding him in contempt

of the September 29 contempt judgment because the wife

"committed fraud by using the 'unenforceable,' 'invalid'

8 The appropriate vehicle for correcting clerical mistakes is a motion for relief from judgment, see Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 60 (a), which the husband did not pursue. Even assuming he had, "[t]he [r]ule does not permit alterations of factual and legal decisions deliberately made, or correction of errors of substantive judgment" (quotation and citations omitted). Gagnon v. Fontaine, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 393, 398 (1994).

9 The husband sought to vacate the parties' pretrial stipulation as to the value of the home and an increase in the amount of sale proceeds to be awarded to him.

8 'stipulation'" to the value of the marital home during the

divorce proceedings. The husband also contends that the "judge

abused her discretion by punishing [the husband] for placing a

disclosure statement" in the P&S. These arguments are without

merit.10

The husband's contention that the pretrial stipulation

constituted fraud on the part of the wife is not properly before

us, see Carey, 446 Mass. at 285, and, in essence, seeks to

relitigate an issue that was resolved against him in a prior

case. See Zheng v. Shen, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2024). As to

his argument that he is being "punish[ed]" for altering the

terms of the P&S, "[c]ivil contempt proceedings are remedial and

coercive, intended to achieve compliance with the court's orders

for the benefit of the complainant" (quotation omitted).

Furtado v. Furtado, 380 Mass. 137, 141 (1980). Here, the

September 29 contempt judgment required the parties to "follow

all recommendations of the realtor regarding the negotiating and

terms contained in the Purchase and Sale agreement." The judge

did not abuse her discretion by finding that the husband's

"attempt[] to insert terms into said Agreement that were not

10The husband also reasserts that the wife was judicially estopped from electing to sell the marital home. As discussed supra, this argument is not properly before us and is nevertheless unavailing.

9 recommended by the realtor (footnote omitted), which would serve

to delay or frustrate the sale of the former marital home," was

a clear disobedience of that provision of the judgment. See

Bock, 492 Mass. at 1025.

2. Appellate costs and fees. The wife seeks appellate

attorney's fees and double costs as sanctions against the

husband and his attorney pursuant to G. L. c. 211A, § 15 and

Mass. R. A. P. 25, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1654 (2019). In

our discretion, we may "award double costs to an appellee in a

civil case when the appeal is frivolous, immaterial, or intended

for delay." Avery v. Steele, 414 Mass. 450, 455 (1993). "An

appeal is frivolous . . . where there can be no reasonable

expectation of a reversal under well-settled law" (citation

omitted). Dacey v. Burgess, 491 Mass. 311, 319 (2023).11 Here,

the husband tried to relitigate the nonmodifiable property

division and devoted the bulk of his briefs to issues not

properly before us and without factual support in the record.

See Avery, supra at 456 ("[i]nappropriate argument and

unsubstantiated statements in a brief may . . . make [appeal]

frivolous"); Allen v. Batchelder, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 453, 458

11 We may assess fees and costs against the husband pursuant to G. L. c. 211A, § 15, and against the husband's attorney pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 25. See Avery, 414 Mass. at 455, 457 & n.6.

10 (1984) (appeal that "cover[ed] no ground not gone over by

[previous] cases" was frivolous). He also failed to consult

with the wife's counsel regarding the contents of the record

appendices, thus requiring her to file supplemental appendices,

and dedicated much of the appendices to predivorce filings and

other documents outside the scope of the issues on appeal.12 See

Mass. R. A. P. 18 (b), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019).

In accordance with the procedures outlined in Fabre v.

Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004), the wife may, within fourteen

days of the issuance of this memorandum and order, submit an

application for attorney's fees and costs with the appropriate

12We note that although it was the husband's obligation as appellant to obtain all transcripts relating to issues to be argued on appeal, see Mass. R. A. P. 8 (b), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1611 (2019), the wife bore the costs of ordering the November 20, 2023, and December 18, 2023, hearing transcripts.

11 supporting materials. The husband shall have fourteen days

thereafter to file a response to that application.13

Judgment on husband's complaint for contempt dated September 29, 2023, affirmed.

Second amended further judgment on contempt entered nunc pro tunc to January 4, 2024, affirmed.

By the Court (Blake, C.J., Meade & Grant, JJ.14),

Clerk

Entered: April 8, 2025.

13 The husband's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied.

14 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.