NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-742

DANIEL G. KRAMER

vs.

ROBIN M. KRAMER.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Daniel G. Kramer (husband), former spouse of Robin M. 

Kramer (wife), appeals from an amended contempt judgment in 

Probate and Family Court that adjudicated him guilty of contempt 

for failing to provide copies of his tax returns as ordered by 

the discovery master and the judge. We affirm.

Background. The parties divorced in 2015, pursuant to a 

judgment of divorce nisi that incorporated all aspects of their 

separation agreement except for its provisions relating to 

property division. The agreement provided, in relevant part, 

that the husband would pay the wife 35% of his base salary each 

month, 33% of any cash bonus above the higher of $100,000 or the 

wife's earned income, and 32% of the stock component of his 
2

compensation structure. The agreement further required each 

party to provide the other with a signed copy of his or her 

income tax return for the prior year within ten days of filing 

the return. In the event that either party remarried, the 

remarried party was required to provide a written certification 

from his or her accountant containing all relevant information 

and supporting documents to compute that party's "earned income" 

or "total compensation," as those terms were defined in the 

agreement.

In 2020, after the husband obtained a new job, the wife 

filed a complaint for modification, claiming that the husband 

"has changed positions, has a new compensation structure and has 

refused to provide the details of same." The husband filed an 

answer and counterclaim seeking to modify or terminate his 

alimony obligation. In 2021, the judge entered a temporary 

order appointing a discovery master "for the purposes of 

monitoring the discovery process in this matter." On July 20, 

2022, the discovery master entered an order requiring the 

husband to transmit, among other things, his "complete tax 

returns from 2018 to 2021, including, but not limited to 1099s, 

with all supporting documents and relevant schedules." Along 

with the order, the discovery master filed a motion to accept 

the order with the Probate Court. Neither party objected, and 
3

the judge incorporated the discovery master's order into a 

temporary order on July 25, 2022 (temporary order).

In October 2022, the wife filed a complaint for contempt 

alleging that the husband had failed to comply with the court's 

temporary order by failing to produce his tax returns and 

supporting documents for 2018 to 2021. The wife further argued 

that the husband had not produced financial statements that 

reliably allowed her to verify the husband's income. In 

response, the husband asserted that he had provided letters from 

his accountant detailing all income he had received in 2019, 

2020, and 2021, along with supporting documents, and that the 

parties' separation agreement allowed a remarried party to 

submit the information in this manner rather than furnishing a 

full tax return "given the privacy concerns" related to the 

remarried party's spouse.

Following a hearing, a different judge (contempt judge) 

entered an amended judgment for contempt on February 23, 2023. 

The amended judgment stated that the husband willfully 

"neglected and refused to provide signed copies of his income 

tax returns for 2018 through 2021, as ordered on July 20, 2022 

by the Discovery Master, which order was accepted by the Court 

(Teixeira, J.) on July 25, 2022."1 The amended contempt judgment 

1 On January 27, 2023, the contempt judge entered an initial

judgment for contempt that also stated that the temporary order 
4

ordered the husband to produce the tax returns by February 28, 

2023; awarded the wife $2,500 in attorney's fees; and ordered 

the husband to keep certain funds in escrow and to produce other 

documents. On March 30, 2023, the husband filed a notice of 

appeal from the amended contempt judgment. That same day, the 

husband moved to reconsider or modify the temporary order dated 

July 25, 2022. In an order entered on April 20, 2023, the judge 

denied the husband's motion, stating:

"The Court appointed a Discovery Master in the present 

case because the former Husband was less than 

forthcoming with his financial information and as a 

result there was a change in circumstance warranting 

the Temporary Order dated July 25, 2022. The 

Temporary Order of the Court dated July 25, 2022 was 

appropriate under the circumstances of this case."

On May 18, 2023, the judge allowed the husband's motion for a 

stay pending his appeal of the amended contempt judgment.

Discussion. 1. Waiver of challenge to temporary order. 

The husband argues that the judge erred by incorporating the 

discovery master's order into a temporary order on July 25, 

2022, because doing so resulted in a modification of the trial 

court's divorce judgment without any findings of fact or 

conclusions of law. The validity of the temporary order, 

"was consistent with the required production of such income tax 

returns in the parties' Separation Agreement filed with the 

Court on June 24, 2015." After the husband filed a motion to 

alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, for a new 

trial, the contempt judge entered the amended judgment which

excluded that statement.
5

however, is not before us for review. The husband did not 

object to the order at the time it was entered. "Objections, 

issues, or claims -- however meritorious –- that have not been 

raised at the trial level are deemed generally to have been 

waived on appeal." Palmer v. Murphy, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 338 

(1997). Nor did the husband move to reconsider the temporary 

order until a month after the judge entered the amended contempt 

judgment, and he did not appeal from the order denying that 

motion for reconsideration. See Siles v. Travenol Labs., Inc., 

13 Mass. App. Ct. 354, 354 n. 1 (1982) (validity of ruling not 

listed by appellant as issue on notice of appeal "is not 

properly before this court and will not be considered on 

appeal"); Mass. R. A. P. 3 (c) (1), as appearing in 491 Mass. 

1601 (2023).

2. The finding of contempt. "We review the judge's 

ultimate finding of contempt for abuse of discretion, but we 

review underlying conclusions of law de novo and underlying 

findings of fact for clear error." Jones v. Jones, 101 Mass. 

App. Ct. 673, 687-688 (2022), quoting Commercial Wharf E. 

Condominium Ass'n v. Boston Boat Basin, LLC, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 

523, 532 (2018). The husband argues that the judge abused her 

discretion because the temporary order did not amount to "a 

clear and unequivocal command," and because her amended contempt 

judgment did not include findings of "clear and convincing 
6

evidence" of the husband's disobedience. See In re Birchall, 

454 Mass. 837, 852-853 (2009).

The disclosure requirement in the temporary order was clear 

and unequivocal. By requiring the husband to provide "complete 

tax returns from 2018 to 2021, including, but not limited to 

1099s, with all supporting documents and relevant schedules," it 

provided the husband with "adequate notice of the required . . . 

activity." Lynch v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 

772, 776 (2001). The husband contends that he "did not see 

issue with the adoption of the Discovery Master's Order, as it 

was understood to identify exchange of income tax information 

obligations to which he had already complied, as well defined by 

the parties' Separation Agreement," and it was only after the 

judge's contempt judgment in 2023 that he "first became aware of 

the trial court's improper interpretation of said Order as it 

relates to income tax information." That contention is 

contradicted by the transcript of the status conference on 

August 1, 2022, in which the husband's counsel informed the 

judge that he had "spent hours" talking with the discovery 

master about "the order with respect to my client producing tax 

returns" and was contemplating filing a motion to modify the 

order because it "conflicts with what the agreement specifically 

contemplates and provides for." As discussed, the husband did 

not file such a motion to modify at that time. Based on these 
7

statements by counsel, we do not credit the husband's assertion 

that he initially understood the temporary order to mean 

something other than what it clearly says.2

We similarly reject the husband's argument that the 

temporary order was ambiguous because it conflicted with the 

earlier separation agreement, which was incorporated into the 

divorce judgment. The temporary order was entered precisely 

because the husband had failed to disclose necessary financial 

information under the terms of divorce judgment. At the August 

1, 2022 status conference, the judge told the husband's counsel 

that "this case has smelled since I began sitting on it" and 

"one thing that irks me to no end is when people do not have 

their information flow freely because it tells me you're trying 

to hide something." The judge later explained that she 

appointed the discovery master "because the former Husband was 

less than forthcoming with his financial information," and there 

was accordingly a "change in circumstance" that warranted entry 

of the temporary order. We therefore conclude that the 

2 Nor does the husband's disagreement with the terms of the 

temporary order provide a defense for his failure to comply with 

it. "Even if erroneous, a court order must be obeyed, and until 

it is reversed by orderly review, it is to be respected" 

(citation omitted). Mohamad v. Kavlakian, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 

261, 264 (2007). Because the temporary order was clearly within 

the jurisdiction of the Probate and Family Court and not 

"transparently invalid on its face," the husband was required to 

obey it. Oakham Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Oakham, 54 Mass. App. 

Ct. 80, 87 (2002).
8

requirement for producing tax returns and supporting documents 

in the temporary order was "a clear and unequivocal command," 

Birchall, 454 Mass. at 853, and further that "undisputed facts 

in the record . . . clearly showed not only what the language 

meant but also that the parties shared a common understanding of 

that meaning." Sax v. Sax, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 765, 772-773 

(2002).

Once a judge finds that a party received a clear and 

unequivocal command, the judge must then find, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that the party "disobediently refrained" 

from following that command. Warren Gardens Hous. Coop. v. 

Clark, 420 Mass. 699, 701 (1995). See Birchall, 454 Mass. at 

853. Here, the husband's disobedience of the temporary order 

was clearly and convincingly established. It required the 

husband to transmit, "no later than July 25, 2022," his 

"complete tax returns from 2018 to 2021, including, but not 

limited to 1099s, with all supporting documents and relevant 

schedules." At the contempt hearing on January 27, 2023, the 

wife's counsel informed the judge that the husband had failed to 

produce his tax returns, and the husband's counsel did not deny 

that failure. Accordingly, the contempt judge found the husband 

in contempt for having willfully "neglected and refused to 

provide signed copies of his income tax returns for 2018 through 

2021." Although the husband argues that he "complied with the 
9

underlying order as he understood it, interpreted by the 

definition of income taxes as the parties agreed upon," his 

failure to produce the specified tax returns is undisputed and

"clear and undoubted disobedience" of the temporary order's 

command. Birchall, supra at 853. We therefore conclude that 

the judge's ultimate finding of contempt was not an abuse of 

discretion. See Martinez v. Lynn Hous. Auth., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 

702, 705 (2019).3

3. Attorney's fees. Having determined that the judge did 

not err in finding the husband in contempt, we affirm the award 

of attorney's fees. See Martinez, 94 Mass. App. Ct. at 708 ("As 

a matter of law, the awarding of attorney's fees and costs is an 

appropriate element of a successful civil contempt proceeding" 

[citation omitted]). The parties' requests for appellate 

attorney's fees and costs are denied.

3 The husband also argues that the contempt judge erred by 

not making findings as required by Mass. R. Civ. P. 65.3 (h), as 

appearing in 386 Mass. 1244 (1982), but that rule does not apply 

to divorce proceedings. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 81 (a) (9), as 

amended, 481 Mass. 1401 (2018). Rule 52 (a) of the Rules of 

Domestic Relations Procedure provides that "[i]n actions tried 

upon the facts without a jury," the judge shall "upon written 

motion made prior to final argument . . . find the facts 

specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon." 

Because the defendant did not file such a written motion, we 

need not decide whether the findings in the amended contempt 

judgment conformed to this rule.
10

Amended contempt judgment 

dated February 23, 2023, 

affirmed.

By the Court (Neyman, 

Brennan & Toone, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: August 5, 2024.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.