Taverna v. Pizzi (2000)

If a child-support obligor dies, the court may, as justice requires, modify or terminate the support obligation, or commute the support obligation to a lump-sum payment.” See Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 884-885 (2000) (within judge’s discretion under G.

See White v. Laingor, 434 Mass. 64, 68 (2001) ("[T]he presence of a negotiated agreement between the parents does not exempt judges from the need to protect children"); Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 882-885 (2000) (court had authority to award child support, including retroactive child support, where prior divorce judgment -- which reflected parties' agreement -- had not addressed only child of marriage).

L. c. 208, § 28 ("Upon a complaint after a divorce . . . the court may make a judgment modifying its earlier judgment as to the care and custody of the minor children . . ."); Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 886 (2000) ("judgment concerning the 4 division of marital property is not subject to modification").

Taverna v. Pizzi 430 Mass. 882, 886 (2000); Bercume v. Bercume, 428 Mass. at 638 ; Mansur v. Clark, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 618, 620 (1988).

See Feinberg v. Diamant, 378 Mass. 131, 136-137 (1979) (probate judge may order support for incompetent adult child through equity powers); Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 885 (2000) (probate judge may use equity power to provide for retroactive child support); Doe v. Roe, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 590, 595 (1987) (through its equity power, probate judge may order support for nonmarital child over age eighteen entitled to support); Pearson v. Pearson, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 156 , 162 n.…

See, e.g., Passemato v. Passemato , 427 Mass, at 57 (college educational trust fund “in the nature of” order for future child support); Tavema v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 886 (2000) (order as to college education fund referred to as support obligation); L.W.K. v. E.R.C., 432 Mass. 438, 452, 453 (2000) (Legislature has provided that parents in some circumstances have obligation to provide “educational support” for children who have reached age of eighteen, but also noting that s…

See Passemato v. Passemato, supra at 54-55 ; Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 886 (2000).

L. c. 208, § 34, and awarded the plaintiff a portion of the defendant’s Massachusetts Electric Company pension, but found the plaintiff “not currently in need of alimony.” Since “a judgment concerning the division of marital property is not subject to modification,” Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 886 (2000); see Bush v. Bush, 402 Mass. 406, 409 (1988), the award of a portion of the defendant’s pension, in effect, vacated the 1986 modification judgment.

See Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 886 (2000); Drapek v. Drapek, 399 Mass. 240, 244 (1987). b.

See, e.g., Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 885 (2000) (judge has power, pursuant to general equity jurisdiction conferred by G.

See Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 885-886 (2000); Passemato v. Passemato, 427 Mass. 52, 54-55 (1998).

See Taverna v. Pizzi , 430 Mass. 882 , 886 (2000) ; Drapek v. Drapek , 399 Mass. 240 , 244 (1987) ("Unlike alimony, a property settlement is not subject to modification"); DuMont v. Godbey , 382 Mass. 234 , 238 (1981) ("The provision for modification of alimony judgments, G.

“The limited circumstances that do justify orders for future educational expenses have involved children with special needs or profligate parents.” Lang v. Koon, 61 Mass. App. Ct. at 25 , citing Passemato v. Passemato , 427 Mass, at 54-55; see Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 886 (2000).

See also Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 886 (2000); Drapek v. Drapek, 399 Mass. 240, 244 (1987).

See Taverna v. Pizzi, 430 Mass. 882, 885 (2000).