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
22-P-398
SONALIKA RUNGTA
vs.
VIDUR DHANDA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant-father appeals from multiple contempt
judgments and orders issued against him, all arising out of his
actions in claiming his minor child as a dependent on his 2020
and 2021 tax returns. The contempts all originate from a 2013
divorce judgment, which expressly provided the plaintiff-mother
with the right to claim the dependent on her tax returns. The
father contends that it was error to find him in contempt of
that 2013 judgment where the child began residing with him in
December of 2016, the mother began paying child support in
October of 2020, and legal custody was transferred from the
mother to the father in June of 2021. There is no dispute,
however, that the terms of the 2013 judgment had not been
modified as of the end of 2021 (indeed, as of that time, the
father had not moved for modification as to the tax dependency issue). Because the father failed to comply with clear and
unequivocal court orders, we affirm.
Background. The parties were divorced in September 2013.
As relevant here, the divorce judgment granted the mother legal
and physical custody of the parties' child, as well as "the
right to claim the child for [F]ederal and [S]tate income tax
exemption/dependency purposes." Despite the divorce judgment's
provision of custody to the mother, around December of 2016, the
child began living full time with the father, with the mother's
acquiescence.
Years later, in April of 2021, the mother filed a contempt
complaint against the father because the father claimed the
child as a dependent on his 2020 tax returns. On June 3, 2021,
a judge of the Probate and Family Court issued a judgment (first
contempt judgment) finding the defendant in contempt, and
ordering the father (1) to file an amended 2020 tax return and
(2) to execute an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) form
"allocat[ing] to [the mother] the right to claim the minor child
for tax year 2020." The father did not appeal from the June 3,
2021 judgment. Shortly thereafter, on June 16, 2021, the judge
ruled on a modification complaint filed by the father in August
2019, and awarded the father "sole legal and physical custody of
the parties' minor child." In July 2021, the father filed a
motion for relief from the first contempt judgment, which the
2 judge denied by a margin endorsement on December 6, 2021.1 The
defendant noticed a timely appeal from the denial of his motion
for relief from judgment.
In July 2021, the mother filed a second contempt complaint
based on the father's failure to comply with the first contempt
judgment. In a judgment dated March 8, 2022 (second contempt
judgment), the judge found the father in contempt, ordered him
to file an amended 2020 tax return and to execute the relevant
IRS form, and ordered the father to pay $25 per day in sanctions
for each day after March 31, 2021 that the father failed to
comply with the judgment.2 The father timely noticed an appeal
from the second contempt judgment, and his two appeals were
consolidated for our consideration.
On March 30, 2022, the mother filed a third contempt
complaint, this time regarding the father's 2021 returns as well
as his 2020 tax returns. In an order dated October 13, 2022
(third contempt judgment), the judge again found the father in
contempt, and ordered him to file an amended tax return for the
1 Although the father's motion is dated July 2021, it does not appear on the docket until September of that year. The father claims that the trial court lost his initial filing. 2 In a second March 2022 order, the judge ordered the mother to
pay $225 per week in child support per the parties' "[a]greement," and it appears that the mother is still subject to that order. Although the record is unclear on this point, it appears that the mother was also required to pay child support in the same amount between October 29, 2020, and June 16, 2021.
3 2021 tax year, to execute the relevant IRS form, and to pay
$4,900 in sanctions. The judge found that the second contempt
judgment and the judgment of divorce "remain[ed] in full force
and effect." He reasoned that the second contempt judgment had
not been stayed, and that the 2013 divorce judgment's tax
provision had not been modified and was not subject to a pending
modification complaint as to that provision. After an
unsuccessful motion for relief from the third contempt judgment,
the father timely noticed his appeal therefrom, and successfully
moved a single justice of this court to consolidate that appeal
with his appeals concerning the first and second contempt
judgments.
Discussion. On appeal, the father contends that the
contempt judgments were improperly issued, primarily due to the
2016 shift in the child's living arrangements, and the June 2021
change in custody. He claims that these changes rendered the
divorce judgment's tax provision invalid, or at least made its
enforcement inequitable. "We review a judge's ultimate finding
of contempt for an abuse of discretion, and we subject questions
of law to plenary review." Department of Revenue Child Support
Enforcement v. Grullon, 485 Mass. 129, 134 (2020).
Civil contempt judgments may issue where a plaintiff shows
"(1) clear disobedience of (2) a clear and unequivocal command."
Smith v. Smith, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 361, 363 (2018). See
4 Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 851 (2009). Here, the
judge found in the first contempt judgment, in June of 2021,
that both elements were met, concluding (1) that the divorce
judgment contained a clear and unequivocal provision granting
the wife the right to claim the dependency exemption, and (2)
that the father disobeyed that command by claiming the child as
a dependent in tax year 2020. We discern no abuse of discretion
or error of law in those determinations. There is no indication
that the father sought (let alone received) modification of the
divorce judgment's tax provision on the bases of the child's
residency or custody before claiming the child as a dependent
for tax year 2020. Although the father points to his August
2019 modification complaint requesting custody of the child and
"[a]ny other remedy the court may deem fit," this vague catch-
all is not sufficiently specific to constitute a request to
modify the tax provision. Regardless, even if it could be read
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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
22-P-398
SONALIKA RUNGTA
vs.
VIDUR DHANDA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant-father appeals from multiple contempt
judgments and orders issued against him, all arising out of his
actions in claiming his minor child as a dependent on his 2020
and 2021 tax returns. The contempts all originate from a 2013
divorce judgment, which expressly provided the plaintiff-mother
with the right to claim the dependent on her tax returns. The
father contends that it was error to find him in contempt of
that 2013 judgment where the child began residing with him in
December of 2016, the mother began paying child support in
October of 2020, and legal custody was transferred from the
mother to the father in June of 2021. There is no dispute,
however, that the terms of the 2013 judgment had not been
modified as of the end of 2021 (indeed, as of that time, the
father had not moved for modification as to the tax dependency issue). Because the father failed to comply with clear and
unequivocal court orders, we affirm.
Background. The parties were divorced in September 2013.
As relevant here, the divorce judgment granted the mother legal
and physical custody of the parties' child, as well as "the
right to claim the child for [F]ederal and [S]tate income tax
exemption/dependency purposes." Despite the divorce judgment's
provision of custody to the mother, around December of 2016, the
child began living full time with the father, with the mother's
acquiescence.
Years later, in April of 2021, the mother filed a contempt
complaint against the father because the father claimed the
child as a dependent on his 2020 tax returns. On June 3, 2021,
a judge of the Probate and Family Court issued a judgment (first
contempt judgment) finding the defendant in contempt, and
ordering the father (1) to file an amended 2020 tax return and
(2) to execute an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) form
"allocat[ing] to [the mother] the right to claim the minor child
for tax year 2020." The father did not appeal from the June 3,
2021 judgment. Shortly thereafter, on June 16, 2021, the judge
ruled on a modification complaint filed by the father in August
2019, and awarded the father "sole legal and physical custody of
the parties' minor child." In July 2021, the father filed a
motion for relief from the first contempt judgment, which the
2 judge denied by a margin endorsement on December 6, 2021.1 The
defendant noticed a timely appeal from the denial of his motion
for relief from judgment.
In July 2021, the mother filed a second contempt complaint
based on the father's failure to comply with the first contempt
judgment. In a judgment dated March 8, 2022 (second contempt
judgment), the judge found the father in contempt, ordered him
to file an amended 2020 tax return and to execute the relevant
IRS form, and ordered the father to pay $25 per day in sanctions
for each day after March 31, 2021 that the father failed to
comply with the judgment.2 The father timely noticed an appeal
from the second contempt judgment, and his two appeals were
consolidated for our consideration.
On March 30, 2022, the mother filed a third contempt
complaint, this time regarding the father's 2021 returns as well
as his 2020 tax returns. In an order dated October 13, 2022
(third contempt judgment), the judge again found the father in
contempt, and ordered him to file an amended tax return for the
1 Although the father's motion is dated July 2021, it does not appear on the docket until September of that year. The father claims that the trial court lost his initial filing. 2 In a second March 2022 order, the judge ordered the mother to
pay $225 per week in child support per the parties' "[a]greement," and it appears that the mother is still subject to that order. Although the record is unclear on this point, it appears that the mother was also required to pay child support in the same amount between October 29, 2020, and June 16, 2021.
3 2021 tax year, to execute the relevant IRS form, and to pay
$4,900 in sanctions. The judge found that the second contempt
judgment and the judgment of divorce "remain[ed] in full force
and effect." He reasoned that the second contempt judgment had
not been stayed, and that the 2013 divorce judgment's tax
provision had not been modified and was not subject to a pending
modification complaint as to that provision. After an
unsuccessful motion for relief from the third contempt judgment,
the father timely noticed his appeal therefrom, and successfully
moved a single justice of this court to consolidate that appeal
with his appeals concerning the first and second contempt
judgments.
Discussion. On appeal, the father contends that the
contempt judgments were improperly issued, primarily due to the
2016 shift in the child's living arrangements, and the June 2021
change in custody. He claims that these changes rendered the
divorce judgment's tax provision invalid, or at least made its
enforcement inequitable. "We review a judge's ultimate finding
of contempt for an abuse of discretion, and we subject questions
of law to plenary review." Department of Revenue Child Support
Enforcement v. Grullon, 485 Mass. 129, 134 (2020).
Civil contempt judgments may issue where a plaintiff shows
"(1) clear disobedience of (2) a clear and unequivocal command."
Smith v. Smith, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 361, 363 (2018). See
4 Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 851 (2009). Here, the
judge found in the first contempt judgment, in June of 2021,
that both elements were met, concluding (1) that the divorce
judgment contained a clear and unequivocal provision granting
the wife the right to claim the dependency exemption, and (2)
that the father disobeyed that command by claiming the child as
a dependent in tax year 2020. We discern no abuse of discretion
or error of law in those determinations. There is no indication
that the father sought (let alone received) modification of the
divorce judgment's tax provision on the bases of the child's
residency or custody before claiming the child as a dependent
for tax year 2020. Although the father points to his August
2019 modification complaint requesting custody of the child and
"[a]ny other remedy the court may deem fit," this vague catch-
all is not sufficiently specific to constitute a request to
modify the tax provision. Regardless, even if it could be read
as such a request, the tax dependency provision was not modified
and remained valid.
The father seemingly argues that his failure to secure
modification of the 2013 divorce judgment does not matter,
because the child's change in residency or legal custody
rendered the tax provision "invalid" as a matter of law. He
relatedly argues that allocation of the dependency exemption can
be accomplished only in connection with child support
5 determinations. We disagree. The one case the father cites for
those propositions, Iv v. Hang, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 598 (2013),
does not support his positions. Instead, that decision says
that judges have the authority to allocate dependency
exemptions, even though the custodial parent would otherwise be
entitled to claim the deduction under Federal law. See id. at
602-603 & n.4. Nor does Hang say that the dependency allocation
must only be allocated in connection with a child support
determination. See id. Thus, because the father neither
secured modification of the 2013 divorce judgment nor identified
any reason that the tax provision was "invalid" as a matter of
law, the father was required to comply with its clear and
unequivocal command. The first contempt judgment was justified.3
The second and third contempt judgments do not stand on
different footing. It is true that the father raised the
allocation of the tax exemption in a February of 2022
modification complaint, prior to the issuance of those
judgments. But we do not agree with the father that the judge
3 The father argues that the judge erred in sua sponte converting what was allegedly a scheduled status conference into a hearing on the mother's first contempt complaint. The father provided no additional factual support for his argument, nor has he provided us with a transcript of the hearing. We accordingly are unable to address this argument. See Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 84 (1995). See also Chokel v. Genzyme Corp., 449 Mass. 272, 279 (2007) (appellant's duty to ensure record is complete); Mass. R. A. P. 8 (b) (1) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1611 (2019).
6 "ignored" this request when she found in the third contempt
judgment that there was no pending modification complaint
"specifically requesting a change relative to th[e] [tax]
provision." The father's request did not seek modification of
the divorce judgment's tax provision, but instead asked the
court to "allocate the right to claim the child as a dependent
. . . as it deems fit and as part of the child support
arrangement" (emphasis added). More important, however, is that
the divorce judgment's allocation of the exemption to the mother
remained unchanged, and the father did not seek to stay
enforcement of the first contempt judgment, which is clear in
requiring the father to file an amended 2020 tax return and to
execute a form allowing the mother to claim the exemption. The
father plainly disobeyed that first judgment, thereby justifying
the second. And without obtaining a stay of the second contempt
judgment, the father again refused to file an amended return or
to execute the relevant form, in clear violation of that
judgment, and again claimed the child as a dependent on his 2021
tax return. This willful noncompliance justified the issuance
of the third contempt judgment.4
4 Because the father did not obtain a stay of the contempt orders pending appeal, we disagree with his argument that the judge erred in acting on the mother's second and third contempt complaints without leave of this court. See Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 62 (g) (in divorce cases, "[u]nless the court otherwise orders, the filing of an appeal shall not stay the operation
7 It may be that the father eventually secures the
modification he seeks.5 But until he does, the divorce and
contempt judgments remain clear, and the father's mere request
for modification does not excuse his conscious disregard of
unequivocal court orders. Court orders are to be obeyed, not
ignored because a litigant believes they are incorrect. See
Mohamad v. Kavlakian, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 261, 264 (2007) ("a
court order must be obeyed, and until it is reversed by orderly
review, it is to be respected"). That said, however, we are
mindful that the child has been living with the father and that
the father has had legal custody since June of 2021. While we
express no opinion on whether the divorce judgment should
ultimately be modified as the father seeks, we do think that the
change in custody is reason for the Probate and Family Court to
take a renewed look at the allocation of the exemption.6 In the
. . . [o]f any other order or judgment of the court relative to custody, visitation, alimony, support, or maintenance"). 5 It appears that the father's modification complaint was set for
a pretrial conference on May 3, 2023. 6 It appears that absent the divorce judgment, the father would
have a claim to the dependency deduction under § 151 and § 152 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, and the attendant Treasury regulations. See generally 26 C.F.R. § 1.152-4. As discussed supra, however, Federal law does not "preclude a State court from allocating an exemption (or ordering that a custodial parent execute an appropriate form releasing the exemption)." Hang, 83 Mass. App. Ct. at 602 n.4.
8 meantime, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in
the issuance of the contempt judgments.
Order entered December 15, 2021, denying motion for relief from judgment affirmed.
Judgment of contempt, entered March 16, 2022, affirmed.
Order on complaint for contempt, entered October 17, 2022, affirmed.
Order entered November 7, 2022, denying motion for relief from order on contempt affirmed.
Corrected order entered November 21, 2022, on complaint for contempt affirmed.
By the Court (Rubin, Englander & Brennan, JJ.7),
Clerk
Entered: May 23, 2023.
7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.