MA Divorce Case - Massachusetts Appellate Case - Langerman vs. Langerman

Massachusetts Divorce - Goldstein & Bilodeau, P.C.


About Us

Howard I. Goldstein
David M. Bilodeau

Carmen Brickman

Collaborators & Other Divorce Professionals

Collaborative Divorce Professionals in Massachusetts
Divorce Law Firm &
Divorce Attorney Directory

Divorce Resources & Forms

The Process of Divorce in a Nutshell
Preparing for Divorce
Child Custody in Massachusetts
Child Support in Massachusetts
Prenuptial Agreements
Case on Post Nuptial Agreements
Collaborative Practice
Divorce Law Articles
Massachusetts Divorce Forms
Supplemental Rule 410
Checklist for Divorce
Separation Agreements
Parent Education Programs
Massachusetts Divorce Laws - Chapter 208
Publication 504: Divorced or Separated Individuals
Divorce Resources
Divorce Terminology

Massachusetts Cases on Family Law & Divorce

Massachusetts Divorce Law Cases


TANIA R. LANGERMAN vs. RICHARD LANGERMAN (and a companion case).

9 Mass. App. Ct. 869

March 11, 1980


Each of the parties brought a complaint for divorce, and on each a judgment of divorce was entered on the ground of cruel and abusive treatment. The wife appeals from the judgments entered in each case but has argued error only as to so much of the judgments entered as provided for alimony and child support. Those judgments provide, among other things, for alimony, support for the parties' minor child, and that the husband make mortgage payments and pay the real estate taxes on the marital home for one year or until the sale of the home should that first occur.

1. The wife argues that the evidence does not support several of the judge's findings, that he weighted them improperly in settling her claims for support, and that the award is so unreasonbly low as to amount to an abuse of discretion. After reviewing the record we cannot say that the judge's findings of fact are clearly erroneous on any material point. See Mass.R.Dom.Rel.P. 52(a) (1975). The judge expressly considered each of the factors that G. L. c. 208, Section 34, required or allowed him to consider and made detailed findings as to each one. Bianco v. Bianco, 371 Mass. 420 , 423 (1976). Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. 398 , 401 (1977). See Hager v. Hager, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 903 , 904 (1978). The weight to be accorded each of the Section 34 factors in a particular case is committed to the judge, Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. at 400-401, who has broad discretion in fashioning a judgment under Section 34. That the judge must consider all the statutory factors does not restrain that discretion; it merely defines its scope. Bianco v. Bianco, 371 Mass. at 423. We find no abuse of that discretion. Compare and contrast Putnam v. Putnam, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 10 , 14-17 (1977); Zildjian v. Zildjian, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 1 , 14-17 (1979).

2. As neither party introduced any evidence on the effects that inflation or income taxes might have on alimony or child support awards, the judge's apparent failure to consider such consequences cannot be held to be clearly erroneous. Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. at 402 n.4.

Judgments affirmed.


More cases


left corner layout image
Copyright 2018, - All rights reserved
right corner layout image
Massachusetts Appellate Case - Langerman vs. Langerman