Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pro se appellant contests post‑appeal amendment and child‑support calculations
Summary
Sarah Dutty, appearing pro se, asked the court to vacate an amended judgment entered after notice of appeal and to revisit child‑support calculations she says the trial judge misstated; appellee urged deference to credibility findings and guideline application.
Pro se appellant Sarah Dutty told the panel she believes the trial court exceeded its authority when it entered an amended judgment after she filed a notice of appeal and that the trial court's child‑support finding did not apply the Massachusetts guidelines to income and bonuses. "After the notice of appeal, jurisdiction transferred to this court, and the trial court no longer had authority to make substantive changes," Dutty said, arguing several enumerated findings of fact (she cited findings 37, 43 and 60) were unsupported by the record.
John Scribner, the appellee, asked the court to affirm, urging deference to the trial judge's credibility determinations and finding that the child‑support schedule and custody decision were within the judge's discretion given the record. The panel questioned the parties on whether contested exhibits were in the trial record and pressed Dutty to identify specific clear errors in findings of fact.
Dutty said she was not seeking a change to custody but asked for correction of income and child‑support calculations and reexamination of a purportedly improperly served motion. Scribner said the trial judge heard witnesses and applied controlling precedents in awarding custody and calculating support. The case was submitted for decision.
