contempt hearing in Massachusetts

2026See Cooper v. Cooper, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 130, 143 (2004) ("contempt is precluded by the judge's finding that the [h]usband eventually did pay the money, and has purged his contempt prior to the hearing" [quotation omitted]).

2009See Cooper v. Cooper, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 130, 143-144 (2004).

2025See id. at 640-641 .

2025See Palmer v. Murphy, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 338 (1997) ("Objections, issues, or claims -- however meritorious -- that have not been raised at the trial level are deemed generally to have been waived on appeal").

2025Due process rights extend to a contempt hearing and require that a defendant "have a reasonable opportunity to meet [the charges] by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel, and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses in his behalf, either by way of defense or explanation." Sodones v. Sodones, 366 Mass 121, 127 (1974), quoting In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 275 (1948).

2023Because the divorce judgment unequivocally commanded the husband to move the listed items to the storage unit, and the judge found that the husband did not make a good faith effort to comply, the judge was "warranted in inferring a wil[l]ful disobedience of the court's order." Furtado v. Furtado, 380 Mass. 137, 150 (1980).

2007See Borne v. Haverhill Golf & Country Club, Inc., 58 Mass. App. Ct. 306, 325 (2003) (findings not clearly erroneous on their face where appellant “furnished no transcript of the contempt hearing that might provide a basis for examining them further”).

2001See Peregood v. Cosmides, 663 So. 2d 665 , 667 n.2 (Fla. Dist.

1997Schuler v. Schuler, 382 Mass. 366, 373-374 (1981).

1997Why ain’t she here?” The judge also gave the defendant another chance to correct his behavior during the fifteen minute recess that was taken prior to the contempt hearing. 6 Further, the defendant’s statements 7 are evidence that he was aware that incarceration would follow should he continue his course of conduct; therefore, the judge’s actions did not take him by surprise because his own statements show that he had sufficient notice that his conduct was impermissible and that “sanctions may be imposed for its repetition.” Sussman v. Commonwealth, 374 Mass. at 697 . 2.

1997See Sussman v. Commonwealth, 374 Mass. at 699 (when summary proceedings are properly invoked, the contemnor is given an opportunity to defend or explain his conduct before punishment is imposed).

1980If the contempt hearing includes both civil and criminal features, the plaintiff who initiated the proceedings could act in place of a prosecutor because “ [pjrivate parties to civil litigation have the right ‘to press both the civil and criminal aspects of the case.’” Katz v. Commonwealth, 379 Mass. 305, 312 (1979), quoting from Root v. MacDonald, 260 Mass. 344, 365 (1927).

1980If the contempt hearing includes both civil and criminal features, the plaintiff who initiated the proceedings could act in place of a prosecutor because “ [pjrivate parties to civil litigation have the right ‘to press both the civil and criminal aspects of the case.’” Katz v. Commonwealth, 379 Mass. 305, 312 (1979), quoting from Root v. MacDonald, 260 Mass. 344, 365 (1927).