Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 36

Security for payment of alimony or support; enforcement of judgments or orders

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 36. When alimony or support is adjudged for the spouse or children, the court may require sufficient security for its payment according to the judgment. Each judgment or order of support which is issued, reviewed or modified pursuant to this chapter shall conform to and shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of section twelve of chapter one hundred and nineteen A.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1928–2023 · leading case: Rosenberg v. Merida

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rosenberg v. Merida (1998) mass · cites it 6× “The plaintiff argues that the primary purpose of the attachment was to secure the college expenses of his son 10 and that, because these expenses are a future contingency, they have not yet been subject to a judgment, as required by G. L. c. 208, § 36. The plaintiff concludes…”

Zaleski v. Zaleski (2014) mass · cites it 2× “” G. L. c. 208, § 36. The wife’s insurance policies would provide a death benefit to *245 the husband in the amount of $1.”

Passemato v. Passemato (1998) mass · cites it 2× “’ Building on § 28, G. L. c. 208, § 36, provides, in pertinent part: ‘When .”

Pare v. Pare (1991) mass “” Building on § 28, G. L. c. 208, § 36, provides, in pertinent part: “When .”

L.W.K. v. E.R.C. (2000) mass “See generally G. L. c. 208, § 36, as appearing in St. 1986, c.”

Taverna v. Pizzi (2000) mass “” In addition, when child support is ordered, pursuant to G. L. c. 208, § 36, “the court may require sufficient security for its payment.”

Ross v. Ross (2000) massappct “See G. L. c. 208, § 36; Pare v. Pare, 409 Mass.”

Donovan v. Donovan (1982) massappct “Under G. L. c. 208, § 36, it was within the power of the Probate Court to order the defendant to assign a portion of his periodic earnings or disability benefits, including workers’ compensation, to the beneficiary of a support order.”

Southard v. Southard (1928) mass “G. L. c. 208, § 36. See Stone v. Bayley, supra.”

Britton v. Britton (2007) massappct “G. L. c. 208, § 36. Because the wife is under no such continuing obligation, no abuse of the judge’s discretion has been shown in not similarly requiring the wife to provide such security.”

Clark v. Barba (1994) massappct “310, § 12 (amending G. L. c. 208, § 36) (allowing court to require security for payment of alimony or support); St.”

Creedon v. Comeau (2018) massappct “Upon the record before us, we cannot say that the judge improperly concluded that the father's replacement life insurance policy adequately secured the father's future support obligations or that the judge otherwise abused his discretion.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.