Source: http://www.massachusetts-divorce.com/cases/Freidus-v-Hartwell.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:49:51+00:00

Document:
By a judgment of divorce nisi dated April 10, 2007, the parties were ordered to comply with the terms of their separation agreement of same date, which, as we have stated, was incorporated, but not merged, in the judgment and survived with independent legal significance. The agreement contains numerous provisions, several of which we highlight below. Article I, paragraph 1, provides that the parties intend to divide between them all of their tangible personal property and will engage the services of a special master to help them to accomplish the division. [Note 2] Article II, paragraph 4, provides that the husband shall retain his right, title, and interest in the Felton Street property but shall pay the wife the sum of $216,000 for her interest in the property on or before July 9, 2007. [Note 3] Finally, article III, paragraph 15, entitled "Costs in Case of Breach," provides: "If either the [h]usband or the [w]ife shall commit a breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement and legal action reasonably shall be required to enforce such provisions and shall be instituted by the other, the party judicially determined to be in breach shall be liable for all court costs and counsel fees incurred in instituting and prosecuting such action."
The matters were finally tried over a three-day period in April, 2009. [Note 7] The judge issued a memorandum and findings in which she noted, inter alia, that the parties' April, 2007, separation agreement provided specifically that it incorporated the parties' entire understanding and was intended to be a full and final settlement of any and all claims and rights each may now or hereafter have against the other for his or her support and maintenance and for the division of property pursuant to G. L. c. 208, § 34. Continuing, the judge found that during the divorce litigation the parties both raised issues of missing property and disputed the itemization of personal property -- yet they executed the separation agreement without itemized lists, photographs, or statements of value. [Note 8] The judge also stated that the husband admitted in his trial testimony that his allegations that the wife stole, hid, or damaged certain items of tangible personal property were based solely upon his assumptions.
2. Discussion. (a) Contractual attorney's fees. The primary thrust of the wife's argument on the appeal is that the judge erred by failing to award her attorney's fees and costs pursuant to article III, paragraph 15, of the separation agreement. More specifically, she asserts that the Probate and Family Court, with the parties' assent, tried her case as an action to enforce specifically the separation agreement (which would include the attorney's fees provision of paragraph 15) as well as an action for civil contempt. She states that the parties' plain intent, as evidenced by paragraph 15, was to compensate a party who needs a judicial order to secure the fruits of her contract, so that the cost of enforcement does not reduce her settlement. In the wife's view, the husband, "effectively," was "judicially determined [by the Probate Court] to be in breach" of the agreement by (1) attempting to relitigate an issue (i.e., the missing property) in his post-divorce contempt action that was settled by the "full and final settlement" provision of the agreement, and (2) using false accusations of theft to deprive the wife of the fruits of her contract in violation of the standards of good faith and fair dealing, which are inherent in all separation agreements.
Even were we to assume, as the wife asserts, that her action invoked the equity jurisdiction of the Probate and Family Court to specifically enforce the agreement, we perceive no reason to disturb the judgment in this case with respect to attorney's fees. See Stansel v. Stansel, 385 Mass. 510 , 515 n.5 (1982) (Probate and Family Court had jurisdiction under G. L. c. 215, § 6, to specifically enforce the parties' separation agreement); Colorio v. Marx, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 382 , 389 (2008) (although husband not adjudged in contempt, judge properly could enforce parties' separation agreement to ensure that wife received her agreed share of marital estate). [Note 13] Pursuant to article III, paragraph 15, a party is liable for court costs and counsel fees where he or she is "judicially determined to be in breach." Here, the wife asserts that the judge effectively determined the husband to be in breach of the agreement by attempting to litigate in his contempt action an issue settled by the agreement. The judge, however, made no specific determination that the husband was in breach, nor do we think that such a determination is necessarily implicit in the judge's findings and rationale. It is true that the judge made findings, and discussed, the husband's opportunities to pursue missing property claims prior to his execution of the settlement agreement (which contains the "full and final settlement" provision). A review of the judge's memorandum and findings, in their entirety, indicate that the judge considered and weighed the husband's evidence concerning the alleged missing items and, as we have stated, found specifically that the husband had not sustained his burden. The judge also indicated that both parties in the present actions made claims concerning the alleged missing property and that the same lack of evidence that unraveled the husband's claim applied to the wife's claim. In the circumstances, we decline to disturb the divorce judgment.
(b) Statutory attorney's fees. The wife argues that the court abused its discretion by failing to award her statutory attorney's fees pursuant to G. L. c. 208, § 38. She notes, correctly, that a judge may make an award of such fees "to one who successfully defends a frivolous contempt action." Krock v. Krock, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 528 , 533 (1999). In the wife's view, an award of statutory fees to her in the present case is particularly appropriate in view of the Probate and Family Court's "finding" that the husband's claims had no basis in the evidence and his conduct, including his misrepresentation, which involved three separate meritless claims that went to trial: that the wife stole property worth one-quarter of a million dollars, vandalized a valuable cabinet, and obstructed the division of marital property. See Kelley v. Kelley, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 733 , 742 (2005) (judge abused his discretion in denying the wife's motion for attorney's fees and costs).

References: § 34
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 § 38
 v. 
 v.