Daneton Durrant Blake v. Georgia Simone Blake.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: April 7, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-0390
• Status: Unpublished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

24-P-390

DANETON DURRANT BLAKE

vs.

GEORGIA SIMONE BLAKE. 1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Daneton Blake (husband) filed a complaint for divorce from

Georgia Blake (wife) alleging an irretrievable breakdown of the

parties' marriage. Following a trial, a judge of the Probate

and Family Court issued a judgment of divorce nisi. The husband

now appeals, asserting the trial judge committed reversible

error by (1) denying the husband's motion for a partial new

trial; (2) dividing the marital assets in a manner that grossly

disproportionately favored the wife; and (3) failing to permit

the husband to introduce evidence regarding his contributions to

the fair market value of the marital home. We affirm.

1As is our practice, we take the parties' names as they appear on the complaint. Discussion. Following the divorce judgment, the husband

filed a partial motion for a new trial on the issues of the

valuation and division of the marital home. 2 In his motion, the

husband specifically argued that the judge erred by preventing

him from introducing the following evidence: (1) expert written

valuation of the marital home; (2) certificates of compliance

from 2014 detailing that renovations on the marital home

complied with State regulations (certificates of compliance);

(3) a letter from his brother stating that the brother has not

been paid for renovations the brother performed on the marital

home; (4) copies of the husband's weekly pay stubs; and (5)

receipts from mortgage payments the husband previously made. In

the husband's view, if this evidence was considered, it would

have substantially altered the judgment.

Here, we see no abuse of discretion in the judge's denial

of the husband's partial motion for a new trial. See Gath v.

M/A-COM, Inc., 440 Mass. 482, 492 (2003) (judge's denial of

motion for new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion). At the

beginning of trial, the trial judge did not allow the husband to

introduce the certificates of compliance into evidence because

the documents did not comply with the pretrial order and were

2 Although the parties never lived together at the property in question, we nevertheless refer to it, as the judge did, as the marital home.

2 not listed on the exhibit list. The pretrial order limited the

evidence that the parties could present in the case to the

financial statements of the parties, wage records, and evidence

of the value of the marital home. Following his case in chief,

and after calling the wife as a witness, the husband told the

trial judge that he had evidence he wanted to submit. The trial

judge informed the husband that any evidence he wished to

introduce must comply with the pretrial order but that if he

wanted "to try to submit some evidence, I'm certainly willing to

listen to you, sir. Just provide Counsel with a copy of what it

is, and we can make the determination based upon that." The

husband told the trial judge "I had the value of the property.

I left it in the car." He did not seek to introduce any other

evidence throughout the remainder of the trial. Accordingly,

where the husband did not attempt to introduce the majority of

the evidence he asserts should have been admitted, and the

evidence he did seek to admit was outside the scope of the

pretrial order, the judge did not abuse his discretion in

denying the husband's partial motion for a new trial. For these

same reasons, and contrary to the husband's arguments, the trial

judge did not prevent the husband from introducing evidence

regarding his contributions to the value of the marital home. 3

3 While the husband also argues that the trial judge erroneously credited the wife's testimony as to the value of the

3 Finally, we disagree with the husband that the trial

judge's division of assets, which primarily consisted of the

equity in the marital home, grossly disproportionately favored

the wife. In finding that the wife was entitled to eighty

percent of the equity of the marital home, the trial judge noted

that the wife credibly testified that she has paid for

substantial renovations to the marital home resulting in a

significant increase in its property value. The trial judge

also found credible the wife's testimony that she has paid "all

expenses associated with the property from 2014 through the date

of trial." Conversely, the trial judge did not find the

husband's financial statement to be credible and noted that the

husband "did not offer any testimony as to what work was

performed [on the property] by he and his brother." Therefore,

given the lack of evidence provided by the husband pertaining to

his contributions to the marital home, we find no reason to

disturb the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of each

party or his ultimate findings. Schecter v. Schecter, 88 Mass.

App. Ct. 239, 245 (2015) ("the judge's assessment of the weight

marital home, the value that the wife testified to was the same value that the wife noted in her financial statement. Notably, the husband elected not to fill out the portion of his financial statement that prompted him to list the fair market value of the home, and he did not introduce any evidence at trial suggesting that the wife's testimony was erroneous.

4 of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses is entitled

to deference" [citation omitted]).

Judgment affirmed.

Order denying partial motion for a new trial affirmed.

By the Court (Desmond, Grant & Hodgens, JJ. 4),

Clerk

Entered: April 7, 2025.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.