Esra Aleyna Kuruca v. Qassim M. Darawsheh.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-1321
• Status: Unpublished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-1321

ESRA ALEYNA KURUCA

vs.

QASSIM M. DARAWSHEH.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Esra Aleyna Kuruca (wife) appeals from a corrected judgment

of divorce nisi entered by a judge of the Probate and Family

Court granting, inter alia, Qassim M. Darawsheh (husband) sole

legal and primary physical custody of the parties' minor

children, obligating the wife to pay the husband $111 weekly in

child support, and dividing the marital property. We affirm.

The parties were married in November 2010 and have two

children together. Between March and May 2022, the wife filed,

and subsequently amended, a complaint for divorce, alleging

cruel and abusive treatment, or, in the alternative,

irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. In March 2024, the

judge held a two-day trial on the merits and issued a judgment of divorce nisi on June 12, 2024, followed by a corrected

judgment on June 20, 2024. The judge also issued comprehensive

findings of fact.

Our review is severely limited by the wife's failure to

identify specific claims of error underlying the judgment, and

to provide reasoned appellate argument supported by citations to

either the record or relevant legal authority. First, the basis

for the wife's appeal is unclear, and the legal reasoning, if

any, difficult to discern.1 The wife does not provide coherent

legal arguments or factual detail as to why the trial judge

erred, cite to controlling authority, or otherwise address the

judge's rulings in any meaningful way, thereby failing to comply

with the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. See S.S.

v. S.S., 104 Mass. App. Ct. 633, 639 n.5 (2024) ("Several of the

husband's individual arguments are unsupported by adequate

discussion, citation to authority, the record, or citation

thereto, so we need not address them"). See also Adams v.

Adams, 459 Mass. 361, 392 (2011), S.C., 466 Mass. 1015 (2013);

Zora v. State Ethics Comm'n, 415 Mass. 640, 642 n.3 (1993)

1 In her brief, the wife argues that the judge had "escalated" the case and that the husband had caused the judge to make rulings that were "unneutral" and "discriminating." We note that there is nothing in the judgment, submitted by the husband, that indicates the trial judge held any bias or discriminatory intent toward the wife. Both parties were represented by counsel at trial.

2 (briefs that include general "bald assertions of error" devoid

of legal arguments do not "rise to the level of appellate

argument"). The rule requires that the brief filed by the

appellant (here, the wife) must contain "the contentions of the

appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons

therefor, with citations to the authorities and parts of the

record on which the appellant relies." Mass. R. A. P.

16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). See

Kellogg v. Board of Registration in Med., 461 Mass. 1001, 1003

(2011). Rule 16 (a) (9) "is more than a mere technicality. It

is founded on the sound principle that the right of a party to

have this court consider a point entails a duty; that duty is to

assist the court with argument and appropriate citation of

authority" (quotation and citation omitted). Cameron v.

Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 85-86 (1995). Here, because the

wife failed to allege with any specification how the court erred

and did not articulate a clear issue on appeal, her submissions

3 "provide an insufficient basis for this court reasonably to

consider [her] claims." Kellogg, supra.

Corrected judgment of divorce nisi affirmed.

By the Court (Grant, Brennan & Smyth, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: December 5, 2025.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.