Mullen v. Mullen

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Mullen v. Mullen

387 N.E.2d 1161, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 899, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1289

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedApril 6, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 387 N.E.2d 1161 (Mullen v. Mullen) 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

Mullen v. Mullen, 387 N.E.2d 1161, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 899, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1289 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant appeals from a judgment of civil contempt for failure to make support payments for the plaintiff and their minor children as provided in a judgment of divorce. While this appeal was pending, a house which the parties owned was sold and a part of the proceeds was taken by a [900]*900receiver to satisfy arrearages in the defendant’s payments. The receiver had previously been appointed for this purpose. Since (as indicated in the receiver’s "Motion to Discharge Lis Pendens”) that sum satisfied the arrearages, the defendant is purged of contempt. Ainslie v. Ainslie, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 692,693 (1978), citing Sodones v. Sodones, 366 Mass. 121, 130 (1974). Therefore, the judgment of contempt is reversed, not on the merits, but because the issue has become moot. The case is remanded to the Probate Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Nilsson v. Pearson, 301 Mass. 228, 229 (1938). Bettigole v. City Council of Springfield, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 816, 817 (1973).

John R. Mullen, pro se, submitted a brief.

So ordered.

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

The defendant appeals from a judgment of civil contempt for failure to make support payments for the plaintiff and their minor children as provided in a judgment of divorce. While this appeal was pending, a house which the parties owned was sold and a part of the proceeds was taken by a [900]*900receiver to satisfy arrearages in the defendant’s payments. The receiver had previously been appointed for this purpose. Since (as indicated in the receiver’s "Motion to Discharge Lis Pendens”) that sum satisfied the arrearages, the defendant is purged of contempt. Ainslie v. Ainslie, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 692,693 (1978), citing Sodones v. Sodones, 366 Mass. 121, 130 (1974). Therefore, the judgment of contempt is reversed, not on the merits, but because the issue has become moot. The case is remanded to the Probate Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Nilsson v. Pearson, 301 Mass. 228, 229 (1938). Bettigole v. City Council of Springfield, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 816, 817 (1973).

John R. Mullen, pro se, submitted a brief.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 N.E.2d 1161, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 899, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-mullen-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack