In the Matter of Kazuko Boudreau.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-1256
• Status: Unpublished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-1256

IN THE MATTER OF KAZUKO BOUDREAU.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Objectors Cheryl Boudreau and Thomas Arsenault have filed

this pro se appeal from an order by a judge of the Probate and

Family Court approving the payment of certain monies to a

conservator for services rendered. They filed an objection to

the conservator's fee request, claiming that it was unnecessary,

excessive, and bordered on fraudulent. The judge approved the

payment to the conservator in whole and this appeal followed.

Because the record is inadequate to evaluate the merits of the

objectors' appeal, we affirm the order allowing payment to the

conservator.

In May of 2024, the conservator submitted a "statement of

payment" for expenses in the amount of $8,575 for services

rendered for the time period from June 2023 until April 2024.

The objectors filed a written objection to the conservator's fee petition asserting that the number of hours the conservator

claimed to have worked were inflated and inaccurate. After a

hearing, the judge allowed the conservator to be paid the entire

amount.

On appeal, the objectors claim that the judge "did not hear

pertinent information and opposition -- contained within the

Affidavit of Opposition and further related verbal explanation

and evidence." The objectors contend that in allowing full

payment to the conservator, the judge ignored the evidence at

the hearing and improperly reprimanded the objector's counsel

for questioning the number of hours submitted by the

conservator. Despite referencing statements made by the judge

at the hearing for the payment of fees to the conservator, the

objectors have not provided the court with a transcript of the

hearing, nor have they provided arguments on appeal with

supporting citations to the record or legal authority. See

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

(2011). While we recognize that the objectors are self-

represented, they are nevertheless required to comply with the

Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. Without an adequate

record, we are unable to review the objectors' claim on appeal.

See Shawmut Community Bank, N.A. v. Zagami, 30 Mass. App. Ct.

371, 372-373 (1991), S.C., 411 Mass. 807 (1992). It "is a

2 fundamental and long-standing rule of appellate civil practice"

that the appellant has an obligation "to include in the appendix

those parts of the [record that] are essential for review of the

issues raised on appeal." Id.

Order allowing payment to conservator affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, Neyman & Walsh, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: October 27, 2025.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.