Hyland v. Hyland

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Hyland v. Hyland

388 N.E.2d 715, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 911

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedApril 30, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 388 N.E.2d 715 (Hyland v. Hyland) 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

Hyland v. Hyland, 388 N.E.2d 715, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 911 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

1. The judge did not err in reducing the plaintiffs child support obligation from one hundred sixty dollars to one hundred forty dollars per week, based on the fact that one of the three children was no longer living with the defendant and required no support from her. We have considered the various factors, including the defendant’s generally higher living expenses and the plaintiffs somewhat improved circumstances, upon which the defendant bases her contention that the judge should have denied altogether the reduction sought by the plaintiff and instead awarded the defendant the increase sought by her on her counterclaim, but we are unable to conclude that the judge abused his discretion. 2. The judge did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for costs and counsel fees filed more than five weeks after the entry of judgment. See Untersee v. Untersee, 299 Mass. 417, 424 (1938); Hayden v. Hayden, 326 Mass. 587, 595 (1950); Dennis v. Dennis, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 361, 363 (1975).

Judgment affirmed.

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

1. The judge did not err in reducing the plaintiffs child support obligation from one hundred sixty dollars to one hundred forty dollars per week, based on the fact that one of the three children was no longer living with the defendant and required no support from her. We have considered the various factors, including the defendant’s generally higher living expenses and the plaintiffs somewhat improved circumstances, upon which the defendant bases her contention that the judge should have denied altogether the reduction sought by the plaintiff and instead awarded the defendant the increase sought by her on her counterclaim, but we are unable to conclude that the judge abused his discretion. 2. The judge did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for costs and counsel fees filed more than five weeks after the entry of judgment. See Untersee v. Untersee, 299 Mass. 417, 424 (1938); Hayden v. Hayden, 326 Mass. 587, 595 (1950); Dennis v. Dennis, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 361, 363 (1975).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 N.E.2d 715, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyland-v-hyland-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack