Robert C. Maurice, Second v. Tami L. Maurice.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-1135
• Status: Unpublished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-1135

ROBERT C. MAURICE, SECOND

vs.

TAMI L. MAURICE.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following the issuance of a judgment of divorce nisi

(divorce judgment) and an order denying his motion to stay the

divorce judgment pending appeal, the plaintiff (husband) moved

before a single justice of this court to stay the divorce

judgment pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6 (a), as appearing in 494

Mass. 1601 (2024). The single justice denied the stay, and the

husband timely filed a notice of appeal. Discerning no error of

law or abuse of discretion, we affirm.

The only issue before us is whether the single justice

abused her discretion in denying a stay pending appeal. To

obtain a stay pending appeal, the husband was required to

demonstrate "(1) the likelihood of [his] success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm to [him] if the court

denies the stay; (3) the absence of substantial harm to other

parties if the stay issues; and (4) the absence of harm to the

public interest" if the stay is granted (citation omitted).

C.E. v. J.E., 472 Mass. 1016, 1017 (2015). These factors mirror

those considered for a preliminary injunction. See Foster v.

Commissioner of Correction, 488 Mass. 643, 650 (2021). This

balancing determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion and

"is rarely overturned." Cartledge v. Evans, 67 Mass. App. Ct.

577, 578 (2006).

The husband maintains that he demonstrated a likelihood of

success on appeal with his argument that the trial judge

incorrectly valued loans borrowed against the 401(k) account

owned by the defendant (wife) and, therefore, committed clear

error in the division of marital assets. In his motion to stay,

the husband also asserted error in the judge's assignment of the

equity in the marital home. It is not entirely clear whether

the husband presses this point on appeal. In the interests of

justice, we have also considered this argument in our review of

the record.

Our review of the record is hampered by the absence of a

trial transcript, without which we cannot evaluate whether, as

the husband maintains, there are "evident" errors in the divorce

judgment, and thus cannot assess the likelihood of his success

2 on the merits. For this reason alone, we cannot conclude that

the single justice abused her discretion in denying the stay.

Accordingly, on the record before us, we perceive no error in

the single justice's denial of the motion to stay. See Gifford

v. Gifford, 451 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2008), quoting Mezoff v.

Cudnohufsky, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 874, 874 (1977) ("'Rarely, if

ever, can it be said that a single justice is in error in

denying relief' under Mass. R. A. P. 6").

Single justice order denying stay affirmed.

By the Court (Shin, Grant & Hershfang, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: October 3, 2025.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.