MacDonald v. MacDonald

Massachusetts Appeals Court

MacDonald v. MacDonald

326 N.E.2d 723, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 742

DecidedApril 25, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 326 N.E.2d 723 (MacDonald v. MacDonald) 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

MacDonald v. MacDonald, 326 N.E.2d 723, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 742 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

The libellant has failed to identify any error in the judge’s solution of the basic problem presented by the alimony and child maintenance aspects of the libel, which was that of stretching the total available income of the parties to meet the needs of all concerned. The combination of the payments ordered and the average earnings of the libellant was slightly in excess of what the judge (on unreported evidence and on financial statements submitted under Rule 49 of the Probate Courts [1973]) determined to be the needs of the libellant and the children; there is nothing to suggest error in the judge’s refusal to accept the libellant’s statement of those needs. Her arguments overlook the fact that the combination of the payments ordered and the libellee’s own (unchallenged) expenses will more than exhaust his total take-home pay.

Decree affirmed.

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

The libellant has failed to identify any error in the judge’s solution of the basic problem presented by the alimony and child maintenance aspects of the libel, which was that of stretching the total available income of the parties to meet the needs of all concerned. The combination of the payments ordered and the average earnings of the libellant was slightly in excess of what the judge (on unreported evidence and on financial statements submitted under Rule 49 of the Probate Courts [1973]) determined to be the needs of the libellant and the children; there is nothing to suggest error in the judge’s refusal to accept the libellant’s statement of those needs. Her arguments overlook the fact that the combination of the payments ordered and the libellee’s own (unchallenged) expenses will more than exhaust his total take-home pay.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 N.E.2d 723, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonald-v-macdonald-massappct-1975.