Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court considers whether probate court properly clarified separation agreement over disability pension
Summary
In 25P0226 the panel considered whether a probate court abused its discretion when it clarified a divorce judgment to allocate part of a disability pension; appellants argued the pension was income not a divisible asset and that the clarification produced an inequitable modification.
The Appeals Court heard argument in 25P0226 about whether the probate and family court abused its discretion by granting relief that clarified a separation agreement to address a disability pension. Appellant counsel Diana Sladen told the panel the court’s clarification effectively treated the pension as an asset subject to division and thus produced a gross inequity: the pension had been treated throughout proceedings as the husband’s income, she said, and was not expressly listed among marital assets in the separation agreement.
Sladen argued that because the agreement is silent as to retention of the pension and refers to a third party to prepare a QDRO, the lower court should not have substantively altered the judgment via a 60(b) ruling. "The pension was never meant to be included," she said, and contended the court below lacked sufficient factual development to make a substantive alteration.
Respondent Derek Gillis told the panel the clarification merely applied standard contract-interpretation principles and that the agreement’s language (including a QDRO reference) supports the lower court’s interpretation. Gillis cited controlling authority that allows a court to clarify ambiguous judgment language and argued that the petition to clarify was properly presented and supported in the record.
Judges questioned whether the separation agreement’s references to a pension and a pension-QDRO are best read as inclusion or as silence permitting further proceedings; they also asked whether statutory objections (including a reference in briefing to chapter 32) were preserved. Both sides relied on record appendices and precedent; the court submitted the matter after argument.
The panel did not render a decision at argument and took the matter under advisement.
