Freddo v. Freddo

• Decision Date: 26 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–P–692.,12–P–692.
• Citation: 83 Mass.App.Ct. 353,983 N.E.2d 1216
• Parties: Mary Ellen FREDDO v. Stephen M. FREDDO.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

83 Mass.App.Ct. 353

983 N.E.2d 1216

Mary Ellen FREDDO

v.Stephen M. FREDDO.

No. 12–P–692.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Argued Jan. 4, 2013.

Decided Feb. 26, 2013.

Dana Alan Curhan, Boston, for Stephen M. Freddo.

Present: FECTEAU, HANLON, & SULLIVAN, JJ.

FECTEAU, J.

Stephen M. Freddo (father) appeals from a summary judgment entered against him in connection with his complaint for modification seeking the termination of his child support obligation on the ground that the parties' children had reached the age of majority under Florida law.¹ Applying the jurisdictional mandates of G.L. c. 209D, § 6–613 ( § 6–613), a judge of the Probate and Family Court assumed authority, as matter of law, to modify the duration of the father's support obligation articulated in the foreign judgment and to provide continued support under the “posteighteen” provisions of G.L. c. 208, § 28.² As we conclude that duration is a nonmodifiable aspect of the child support order here at issue, we reverse the judgment.

The father and Mary Ellen Freddo (mother) were married on July 4, 1981. The marriage produced four children; as here relevant, the two youngest were born on August 3, 1990, and September 8, 1992. The parties were divorced on January 12, 1995, by a “Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage” (Florida judgment) entered by the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Family Law Division (Florida Circuit Court). The Florida judgment included a provision for child support, which was to terminate entirely, inter alia, “upon the minor children reaching the age of majority.” ³ On January 31, 1997, a judge of the Florida Circuit Court modified the Florida judgment, increasing the amount of the father's child support obligation. Since January 31, 1997, however, the Florida judgment has not been modified by any court, despite the extensive litigation between the parties.

It is undisputed that the mother, the father, and the children at issue now reside in Massachusetts.⁴ Relevant to this appeal, the father filed a complaint for modification in the Probate and Family Court on August 23, 2011, requesting that the child support provision of the Florida judgment, as modified on January 31, 1997, be terminated pursuant to Florida law. Under the law of that State, support obligations terminate on a child's eighteenth birthday, subject to certain exceptions not here applicable.⁵ The mother moved to dismiss the father's complaint for modification, and the father moved for summary judgment. On October 31, 2011, the probate judge found the father's request to terminate his child support obligation groundless, ruling that the court's authority to enter support orders extended to the parties' two youngest children pursuant to the posteighteen provisions of G.L. c. 208, § 28. We disagree.

Discussion. 1. Standard of review. The gravamen of the father's appeal concerns whether the judge correctly interpreted § 6–613, a provision of the Commonwealth's codification of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), to provide him with the authority to modify the Florida judgment and extend the duration of the father's child support obligation beyond that permitted under Florida law. See generally UIFSA 9 (Part IB) U.L.A. 295 (Master ed. 2005). “This is a question of statutory interpretation, and therefore one that we review de novo.” Rosnov v. Molloy, 460 Mass. 474, 476, 952 N.E.2d 901 (2011). See Commonwealth v. Cintolo, 415 Mass. 358, 359, 613 N.E.2d 509 (1993) (“Statutory interpretation is a pure question of law”).

2. Choice of law. As stated above, the father contends that the judge lacked authority to extend his child support obligation because its duration is fixed by Florida law, regardless of the differing duration permitted by Massachusetts law. Under Florida law, child support obligations generally terminate when the child reaches the age of eighteen.⁶Fla. Stat. §§ 61.14(9), 743.07(2) (2012). See Wattenbarger v. Wattenbarger, 767 So.2d 1172, 1172–1173 (Fla.2000); Taylor v. Bonsall, 875 So.2d 705, 707–708 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004). In contrast, Massachusetts law provides support beyond age eighteen for any child (1) “who has attained age eighteen but who has not attained age twenty-one and who is domiciled in the home of a parent, and is principally dependent upon said parent for maintenance,” or (2) “who has attained age twenty-one but who has not attained age twenty-three, if such child is domiciled in the home of a parent, and is principally dependent upon said parent for maintenance due to the enrollment of such child in an educational program....” G.L. c. 208, § 28. At the time the father filed his complaint for modification, the parties' two youngest children were eighteen and twenty-one years of age.⁷ By virtue of age and circumstance, therefore, the children were outside the scope of the provisions entitling them to continued support under Florida law, notwithstanding that they may otherwise have been well within the purview of Massachusetts law.

The probate judge determined, and the father agrees, that § 6–613 applies in this case.⁸Section 6–613, inserted by St. 1998, c. 64, § 281, states:

“( a ) If all of the parties who are individuals reside in the commonwealth and the child does not reside in the issuing state, a tribunal of the commonwealth shall have jurisdiction to enforce and modify the issuing state's child support order in a proceeding to register such order.

“( b ) A tribunal of the commonwealth exercising jurisdiction under this section shall apply the provisions of this article and articles 1 and 2, and the procedural and substantive law of the commonwealth to the proceeding for enforcement or modification.”

Here, the mother, the father, and the children at issue are residents of Massachusetts, in satisfaction of § 6–613( a ). However, that § 6–613( a ) may apply to a matter does not necessarily end the analysis and confer upon the courts of this Commonwealth the unrestricted authority to apply Massachusetts procedural and substantive law in every modification proceeding, as the probate judge appears to have concluded. That interpretation oversimplifies the choice of law doctrine, and undercuts another operative provision of the statute, G.L. c. 209D, § 6–611 (§ 6–611).

Section 6–611, as amended through St. 1998, c. 64, § 278, states, in relevant part:

“( a ) After a child support order issued in another state has been registered in the commonwealth, the responding tribunal of the commonwealth may modify that order only if section 6–613 does not apply and after notice and hearing it finds that:

“(1) the following requirements are met:

“(i) the child, the individual obligee, and the obligor do not reside in the issuing state;

“(ii) a petitioner who is a nonresident of the commonwealth seeks modification; and

“(iii) the respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of the commonwealth;

“...

“( c ) A tribunal of the commonwealth may not modify any aspect of a child support order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing state.”

The procedural and substantive law of Massachusetts generally governs modification. However, if the parties and the children have moved from the issuing State and the party petitioning for modification does not reside in Massachusetts, see § 6–611( a )(1), or if the parties and the children all reside here, see § 6–613( a ), then § 6–611( c ) explicitly prohibits modification if the aspect of the child support order at issue may not be modified under the law of the issuing State.⁹

The question then becomes whether § 6–611( c ) operates independently of § 6–611( a ), thus limiting the jurisdictional mandates of § 6–613 in this matter. In effect, the fact that the father is indeed a resident of Massachusetts—rendering § 6–611( a )(1)(ii) inapplicable—does not, in turn, render the statutory limit on judicial authority set forth in § 6–611( c ) meaningless.

To further inform our statutory construction of these sections, we consider the cognate provisions of the UIFSA, together with any accompanying commentary for insight into the legislative intent of G.L. c. 209D. See Klingel v. Reill, 446 Mass. 80, 82–83, 841 N.E.2d 1256 (2006). “General Laws c. 209D was enacted in 1995, St. 1995, c. 5, § 87, adopting the 1992 version of the [UIFSA].” Id. at 83, 841 N.E.2d 1256, citing Child Support Enforcement Div. of Alaska v. Brenckle, 424 Mass. 214, 217–218, 675 N.E.2d 390 (1997). As originally enacted, § 6–611 adopted language identical to § 611 of the 1992 UIFSA. UIFSA (1992) § 611, supra at 513–514. When the UIFSA was revised in 1996, the Legislature adopted the changes as provided in the UIFSA, amending the language of § 6–611 in relevant part and adding § 6–613. See St. 1998, c. 64, §§ 278–281; UIFSA (1996) §§ 611, 613, supra at 442–443, 454. In the comment to § 611 of the 1996 UIFSA, the drafters explained:

“Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction because the issuing state has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to modification of child support orders. However, Subsection (c) prevents the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in accordance with the law of the issuing state and the law of the forum state ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21 ” (emphasis added).

Comment to UIFSA (1996) § 611, supra at 446. See comment to UIFSA (1992) § 611, supra at 516. Furthermore, following the UIFSA's 1996 revision, the drafters elaborated in the comment to § 613:

“Finally, because modification of the child support order when all parties reside in the forum is essentially an intrastate matter, Subsection (b) withdraws authority to apply most of...