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
23-P-1430
THOMAS MICHAEL BONAPARTE & another1
vs.
MICHELA DEVOTI.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This appeal stems from protracted divorce proceedings
beginning in 2015 in the Probate and Family Court between
Michela Devoti (wife) and Thomas Michael Bonaparte (husband),
during a portion of which the wife was represented by Attorney
Lauren G. Klein. After Attorney Klein withdrew from her
representation of the wife, she initiated a Superior Court
action to determine the amount of her attorney's lien. The
Superior Court proceedings determined the amount of the
attorney's lien and resulted in the imposition of sanctions on
the wife for vexatious litigation.
1 Lauren G. Klein, intervener. Meanwhile, the divorce judgment was vacated in part by this
court, and a Probate and Family Court judge (remand judge)
thereafter issued an "amended judgment on remand" on September
9, 2021 (amended divorce judgment) providing, among other
things, that all amounts due to Attorney Klein under the
Superior Court judgment would be paid directly to her from the
wife's portion of the property division. After the amended
divorce judgment, the wife filed appeals challenging, among
other things, the division of the marital assets and the
authority of the Superior Court judge setting and ordering the
payment of the attorney's lien.
In this appeal, her third in the divorce proceedings, the
wife challenges two orders of the remand judge: first, an order
dated August 8, 2023, allowing Attorney Klein's motion to
clarify or amend an order relating to the payment by wife of
legal fees and sanctions; and second, an order dated November
21, 2023, denying the wife's motion for postjudgment interest on
the amount ordered to be paid to the wife by the husband in the
amended divorce judgment.2 We affirm.
2 The order dated November 21, 2023, also denied the wife's motion for reconsideration of a different order, but the wife makes no separate argument with regard to that portion of the order on appeal.
2 Background. The parties were married in October 2005, and
a judgment of divorce nisi issued in June 2016 (2016 divorce
judgment).3 Klein represented the wife in the divorce
proceedings through the entry of the 2016 divorce judgment.
After the 2016 divorce judgment entered, Klein withdrew as the
wife's counsel and successfully moved to enforce her attorney's
lien. In December 2016, Klein commenced a Superior Court action
to determine the amount of her attorney's lien. In July 2020,
following a trial, a Superior Court judge issued findings of
fact and judgments (1) declaring that $36,891.60 was the amount
of reasonable attorney's fees owed by the wife for services
rendered by Klein in connection with the divorce proceedings;
and (2) requiring the wife to pay the previously ordered
sanctions, in the amount of $3,990, plus statutory prejudgment
interest from December 2019 to July 2020.4
In September 2021, the remand judge of the Probate and
Family Court issued the amended divorce judgment providing,
The wife appealed and, in 2018, this court vacated the 3
2016 divorce judgment (except for the portion dissolving the parties' marriage) and remanded the case for a new trial because the wife had not been permitted to testify either telephonically or electronically. See Bonaparte v. Devoti, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 603, 608 (2018).
The wife appealed from the Superior Court judgments, which 4
were affirmed by a different panel of this court in an unpublished memorandum and order. See Klein v. Devoti, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2022).
3 among other things, that as part of the property division, the
wife shall receive $79,400 from the husband for the division of
the property, less "all funds due" to Attorney Klein pursuant to
the Superior Court action, plus statutory interest, within three
months of the resolution of the appeals in the Probate and
Family Court case and the Superior Court case. Any such funds
were ordered to be paid by the husband directly to Attorney
Klein. The amended judgment did not order the husband to pay
postjudgment interest to the wife.
Following resolution of the appeal from the amended divorce
judgment,5 the remand judge entered an order on June 7, 2023,
regarding the outstanding payment due to Attorney Klein. Klein
noticed a discrepancy in that order regarding the attorney's
fees and sanctions and brought it to the court's attention by
filing a motion to amend or clarify the prior order. On August
8, 2023, the judge allowed this motion and recalculated the
payment to Attorney Klein to reflect the correct amount for the
judgment, sanctions, and payment.
On October 6, 2023, the wife filed a motion requesting that
the remand judge order the husband pay postjudgment interest on
5 On the wife's appeal from the amended divorce judgment, a different panel of this court affirmed the judgment (except for the portion on certain educational expenses for the child). See Bonaparte v. Devoti, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (2023).
4 the $79,400 award in the amended divorce judgment. This amount
represented the division of the marital home. In an order dated
November 21, 2023, the judge denied the wife's motion for
postjudgment interest, noting that the wife had filed an appeal
from the divorce judgment after remand and that any issues
regarding the division of assets or award of postjudgment
interest should be decided in that appeal.
In this appeal, the wife claims that the August 8, 2023
order of the judge is invalid because a judge of the Probate and
Family Court lacks authority to enforce a Superior Court
judgment of an attorney's lien. The wife also claims that she
is entitled to receive postjudgment interest on the $79,400 from
the husband for the division of their property and that the
judge erred in her order dated November 21, 2023, denying her
motion for postjudgment interest.
Discussion. First, as to the order dated August 8, 2023,
the wife claims that the judge of the Probate and Family Court
lacked authority to order her to pay the attorney's lien and
related sanctions ordered by the Superior Court. The issue of
the authority of the Probate and Family Court judge to enforce
an attorney's lien and the imposition of sanctions were either
already decided in her prior appeals, see Bonaparte v. Devoti,
102 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (2023), and Klein v. Devoti, 101 Mass.
5 App. Ct.
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
23-P-1430
THOMAS MICHAEL BONAPARTE & another1
vs.
MICHELA DEVOTI.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This appeal stems from protracted divorce proceedings
beginning in 2015 in the Probate and Family Court between
Michela Devoti (wife) and Thomas Michael Bonaparte (husband),
during a portion of which the wife was represented by Attorney
Lauren G. Klein. After Attorney Klein withdrew from her
representation of the wife, she initiated a Superior Court
action to determine the amount of her attorney's lien. The
Superior Court proceedings determined the amount of the
attorney's lien and resulted in the imposition of sanctions on
the wife for vexatious litigation.
1 Lauren G. Klein, intervener. Meanwhile, the divorce judgment was vacated in part by this
court, and a Probate and Family Court judge (remand judge)
thereafter issued an "amended judgment on remand" on September
9, 2021 (amended divorce judgment) providing, among other
things, that all amounts due to Attorney Klein under the
Superior Court judgment would be paid directly to her from the
wife's portion of the property division. After the amended
divorce judgment, the wife filed appeals challenging, among
other things, the division of the marital assets and the
authority of the Superior Court judge setting and ordering the
payment of the attorney's lien.
In this appeal, her third in the divorce proceedings, the
wife challenges two orders of the remand judge: first, an order
dated August 8, 2023, allowing Attorney Klein's motion to
clarify or amend an order relating to the payment by wife of
legal fees and sanctions; and second, an order dated November
21, 2023, denying the wife's motion for postjudgment interest on
the amount ordered to be paid to the wife by the husband in the
amended divorce judgment.2 We affirm.
2 The order dated November 21, 2023, also denied the wife's motion for reconsideration of a different order, but the wife makes no separate argument with regard to that portion of the order on appeal.
2 Background. The parties were married in October 2005, and
a judgment of divorce nisi issued in June 2016 (2016 divorce
judgment).3 Klein represented the wife in the divorce
proceedings through the entry of the 2016 divorce judgment.
After the 2016 divorce judgment entered, Klein withdrew as the
wife's counsel and successfully moved to enforce her attorney's
lien. In December 2016, Klein commenced a Superior Court action
to determine the amount of her attorney's lien. In July 2020,
following a trial, a Superior Court judge issued findings of
fact and judgments (1) declaring that $36,891.60 was the amount
of reasonable attorney's fees owed by the wife for services
rendered by Klein in connection with the divorce proceedings;
and (2) requiring the wife to pay the previously ordered
sanctions, in the amount of $3,990, plus statutory prejudgment
interest from December 2019 to July 2020.4
In September 2021, the remand judge of the Probate and
Family Court issued the amended divorce judgment providing,
The wife appealed and, in 2018, this court vacated the 3
2016 divorce judgment (except for the portion dissolving the parties' marriage) and remanded the case for a new trial because the wife had not been permitted to testify either telephonically or electronically. See Bonaparte v. Devoti, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 603, 608 (2018).
The wife appealed from the Superior Court judgments, which 4
were affirmed by a different panel of this court in an unpublished memorandum and order. See Klein v. Devoti, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2022).
3 among other things, that as part of the property division, the
wife shall receive $79,400 from the husband for the division of
the property, less "all funds due" to Attorney Klein pursuant to
the Superior Court action, plus statutory interest, within three
months of the resolution of the appeals in the Probate and
Family Court case and the Superior Court case. Any such funds
were ordered to be paid by the husband directly to Attorney
Klein. The amended judgment did not order the husband to pay
postjudgment interest to the wife.
Following resolution of the appeal from the amended divorce
judgment,5 the remand judge entered an order on June 7, 2023,
regarding the outstanding payment due to Attorney Klein. Klein
noticed a discrepancy in that order regarding the attorney's
fees and sanctions and brought it to the court's attention by
filing a motion to amend or clarify the prior order. On August
8, 2023, the judge allowed this motion and recalculated the
payment to Attorney Klein to reflect the correct amount for the
judgment, sanctions, and payment.
On October 6, 2023, the wife filed a motion requesting that
the remand judge order the husband pay postjudgment interest on
5 On the wife's appeal from the amended divorce judgment, a different panel of this court affirmed the judgment (except for the portion on certain educational expenses for the child). See Bonaparte v. Devoti, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (2023).
4 the $79,400 award in the amended divorce judgment. This amount
represented the division of the marital home. In an order dated
November 21, 2023, the judge denied the wife's motion for
postjudgment interest, noting that the wife had filed an appeal
from the divorce judgment after remand and that any issues
regarding the division of assets or award of postjudgment
interest should be decided in that appeal.
In this appeal, the wife claims that the August 8, 2023
order of the judge is invalid because a judge of the Probate and
Family Court lacks authority to enforce a Superior Court
judgment of an attorney's lien. The wife also claims that she
is entitled to receive postjudgment interest on the $79,400 from
the husband for the division of their property and that the
judge erred in her order dated November 21, 2023, denying her
motion for postjudgment interest.
Discussion. First, as to the order dated August 8, 2023,
the wife claims that the judge of the Probate and Family Court
lacked authority to order her to pay the attorney's lien and
related sanctions ordered by the Superior Court. The issue of
the authority of the Probate and Family Court judge to enforce
an attorney's lien and the imposition of sanctions were either
already decided in her prior appeals, see Bonaparte v. Devoti,
102 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (2023), and Klein v. Devoti, 101 Mass.
5 App. Ct. 1106 (2022), or were not raised below in the first
instance. In fact, we note in an earlier appeal, the wife
unsuccessfully argued that the Superior Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the attorney's lien and claimed that
only the judge of the Probate and Family Court had such
authority. Now, the wife makes the reverse argument -- that the
judge of the Probate and Family Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to enforce the Superior Court order. We will not
revisit those previously decided issues, see King v. Driscoll,
424 Mass. 1, 7-8 (1996).
Second, the wife appeals from the order of November 21,
2023, denying her request to award postjudgment interest on the
division of assets. In this order, the judge reasoned that the
wife had timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment
entered after remand and that any issues relating to the
division of assets or award of postjudgment interest should be
decided in that appeal. We agree. Again, the issue of the
division of marital property was squarely addressed by a
different panel of this court in Bonaparte v. Devoti, 102 Mass.
App. Ct. 1112 (2023), and to the extent that the issue of
6 postjudgment interest was not raised, we decline to entertain it
for the first time in this appeal.6
Order dated August 8, 2023, affirmed.
Order dated November 21, 2023, affirmed.
By the Court (Meade, Walsh & Smyth, JJ.7),
Clerk
Entered: April 23, 2025.
6 Attorney Klein, describing the wife's appeal as an abuse of judicial process, has requested an award of appellate attorney's fees. While the argument has some force, we decline to exercise our discretion to award attorney's fees requested by Attorney Klein. The wife's request for appellate fees and costs is denied. 7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.