Keiter v. Keiter

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Keiter v. Keiter

258 N.E.2d 778, 357 Mass. 772

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 1, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 258 N.E.2d 778 (Keiter v. Keiter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keiter v. Keiter, 258 N.E.2d 778, 357 Mass. 772 (Mass. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

On June 6, 1968, the Probate Court entered a decree that the petitioner (wife) was living apart from the respondent (husband) for justifiable cause; that the wife would have the care and custody of their child, Mitchell Ira Keiter, who was born on March 30, 1967; that the husband would have the right to visit and take the child for two hours on each Sunday afternoon; and that the husband should make certain payments for the support of his wife and child. On [773]*773March 26, 1969, the wife filed a petition to modify the decree by permitting her to leave this Commonwealth with the child and to make their permanent home in the area of the city of New York where she had lived all of her life before her marriage and wheie her parents and other relatives still lived. After a contested hearing the Probate Court entered a new decree on June 11, 1969, allowing the wife to move to New York with the child, and changing the days and hours on which the husband might see and have custody of the child. The husband appeals from the second decree. The evidence is reported. All questions of law, fact and discretion are therefore open for our decision. The trial judge made a report of the material facts found by him. We may find facts in addition to those found by him; and, if satisfied that he was plainly wrong in the findings which he made, we may make findings contrary thereto. White v. White, 322 Mass. 30, 31. Sulmonetti v. Hayes, 347 Mass. 390, 391. The evidence consists principally of oral testimony. The trial judge had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and we did not. His findings are justified by the evidence in the record, they are not plainly wrong, and we agree with them. The facts found support the decree from which the husband is appealing. There was no error.

Walter H. McLaughlin, Jr. (David G. Hanrahan with him) for the respondent. Joseph B. Abrams for the petitioner.

Decree affirmed.

Costs and expenses of appeal may be awarded in the discretion of the Probate Court.

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

On June 6, 1968, the Probate Court entered a decree that the petitioner (wife) was living apart from the respondent (husband) for justifiable cause; that the wife would have the care and custody of their child, Mitchell Ira Keiter, who was born on March 30, 1967; that the husband would have the right to visit and take the child for two hours on each Sunday afternoon; and that the husband should make certain payments for the support of his wife and child. On [773]*773March 26, 1969, the wife filed a petition to modify the decree by permitting her to leave this Commonwealth with the child and to make their permanent home in the area of the city of New York where she had lived all of her life before her marriage and wheie her parents and other relatives still lived. After a contested hearing the Probate Court entered a new decree on June 11, 1969, allowing the wife to move to New York with the child, and changing the days and hours on which the husband might see and have custody of the child. The husband appeals from the second decree. The evidence is reported. All questions of law, fact and discretion are therefore open for our decision. The trial judge made a report of the material facts found by him. We may find facts in addition to those found by him; and, if satisfied that he was plainly wrong in the findings which he made, we may make findings contrary thereto. White v. White, 322 Mass. 30, 31. Sulmonetti v. Hayes, 347 Mass. 390, 391. The evidence consists principally of oral testimony. The trial judge had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and we did not. His findings are justified by the evidence in the record, they are not plainly wrong, and we agree with them. The facts found support the decree from which the husband is appealing. There was no error.

Walter H. McLaughlin, Jr. (David G. Hanrahan with him) for the respondent. Joseph B. Abrams for the petitioner.

Decree affirmed.

Costs and expenses of appeal may be awarded in the discretion of the Probate Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 N.E.2d 778, 357 Mass. 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keiter-v-keiter-mass-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack