Saxena v. Sewak

Decision Date03 February 2020
Docket Number19-P-148
Citation97 Mass.App.Ct. 1102,140 N.E.3d 950 (Table)
Parties Atmaja SAXENA v. Saurabh SEWAK.
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

Atmaja Saxena (mother) appeals from a judgment modifying the weekly child support required to be paid by Saurabh Sewak (father). On appeal, the mother contends that the judge abused his discretion by (1) failing to include the father's bonus and stock options in setting the child support amount and not making the new child support amount retroactive; (2) attributing income to the mother; (3) eliminating portions of the separation agreement; and (4) denying her motion for a new trial. We vacate the portion of the judgment deleting the portions of the separation agreement that neither party litigated, but we otherwise affirm.

Background. The mother and the father were married in 2004. Their only child was born in 2011. A judgment of divorce nisi entered in 2014, incorporating the parties' separation agreement. The separation agreement, as incorporated, included child support provisions.2 In 2015, the father filed a complaint for modification. This modification judgment increased the father's time with the child.

The present appeal concerns the mother's 2016 complaint for modification, seeking to increase the amount of weekly child support paid by the father.3 At the time she filed the complaint, the father was paying $797 in weekly child support. After two days of trial,4 a Probate and Family Court judge entered a modification judgment that increased the father's weekly payments of child support to $809. The judge also eliminated section 3, paragraphs A through G of the separation agreement. See note 1, supra.

Discussion. Weekly child support. We review a judge's modification of child support for an abuse of discretion. See Pierce v. Pierce, 455 Mass. 286, 293 (2009). The parties' joint income (prior to attribution of income to the mother, see discussion infra ) exceeded $250,000, and thus the Child Support Guidelines (guidelines) provided the minimum presumptive amount of weekly child support. Support above that amount was to be determined in the judge's discretion, consistent with the child's best interest. See Guidelines § II-C; Levitan v. Rosen, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 248, 256 n.12 (2019) ("The judge may, in his discretion, decline to award child support on any additional income above the first $250,000 of the parties' combined available income ..., and may also deviate from the minimum presumptive order required by the Guidelines").

Here, the judge did not abuse his discretion in setting the modified amount of weekly child support. The judge found that the child was seven years old, doing well, and attending kindergarten. The father's salary had decreased, while the mother's salary had increased since the last modification of child support. The parties shared legal custody, and as a result of the prior modification, the father had substantially greater physical custody of the child than he had had at the time of the divorce. Moreover, on top of his weekly child support payment, the father also paid for the child's extracurricular activities; the mother made no contributions to these. The judge also found that the mother had extravagant discretionary expenses. Both parties submitted child support calculations using the 2017 guidelines. The father proposed $802 weekly child support, while the mother proposed $817. The judge ordered child support in the amount of $809 weekly, essentially midway between the parties' proposals.

The mother contends that the judge abused his discretion in declining to set the amount of weekly child support higher in light of the father's anticipated yearly bonus and stock options. The judge found, based on ample evidence, that the bonus was not guaranteed or predicable; and, the stock options were not exercised and were subject to limitations.5 Given the parties' joint income exceeded $250,000 and the judge's other findings, we see no abuse of discretion.

Retroactivity. The mother also contends that the judge erred in not making the modified weekly child support amount retroactive. The decision whether to make support retroactive is discretionary with the judge. See Boulter-Hedley v. Boulter, 429 Mass. 808, 809-810 (1999). Given that the father was paying above the presumptive minimum amount of the guidelines at the time the modification complaint was filed, and the judge's finding that the child was doing well coupled with the father's decreased salary and the judge's other findings, there was no abuse of discretion. Contrast Hoegen v. Hoegen, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 6, 11-12 (2016).

Income attribution. The mother also faults the judge for attributing income to her. Income may be attributed where a finding has been made that the mother is capable of working and is unemployed or underemployed. See Guidelines § I-E. We review for an abuse of discretion. See Fehrm-Cappuccino v. Cappuccino, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 525, 531 (2016). There was evidence that the mother had the ability to work full time, is licensed as a pharmacist, and is employable based on her skills and demand. There was also evidence regarding her compensation from her part-time contracts. See C.D.L. v. M.M.L., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 146, 159 (2008) (proper income attribution where potential income commensurate with mother's education, training, employment history, and past earnings). The record included examples of full-time pharmacist positions in Massachusetts about which the mother had received e-mails. Furthermore, the mother was earning much more as a part-time employee than when she was a full-time employee prior to the divorce. Contrast Fehrm-Cappuccino, supra at 530-532 (improper income attribution where mother lacked college degree, was unemployed during marriage and at time of divorce, and was responsible for overwhelming majority of children's care). On this record, the judge did not abuse his discretion in attributing income to the mother.

Elimination of separation agreement provisions. The mother maintains that the judge abused his discretion in eliminating the child support provisions in the separation agreement because those provisions were not litigated at trial. Because the elimination of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT