Source: http://www.massachusetts-divorce.com/cases/Hartog-v-Hartog.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:41:07+00:00

Document:
Present: PERRETTA, DREBEN, & WARNER, JJ.
COMPLAINT for divorce filed in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on May 31, 1985.
The case was heard by James M. Sweeney, J., and a complaint for modification, filed on June 25, 1987, was also heard by him.
Allen C. B. Horsley (Susan F. Koffman with him) for Maurice Hartog.
Anita W. Robboy for Esther Hartog.
DREBEN, J. Pursuant to a judgment of divorce dated August 22, 1986, the wife was given the exclusive right to occupy the marital domicil until August 1, 1988. Thereafter, the home was to be placed on the market, and, when sold, the net proceeds were to be divided equally between the parties, the husband to pay the wife at the time of sale the sum of $30,000 from his net share. Claiming changed circumstances, the wife, in 1987, filed a complaint for modification. After a three-day hearing, the judge, on the basis of changes occurring after the divorce, found that the children's mental health required their remaining in the marital home for a longer period, and he modified the judgment to give the wife the right to use the marital domicil for an additional eight years. The division of proceeds upon sale remained as in the original divorce judgment.
The husband appeals claiming that there was no material change in circumstances justifying a different judgment and that, in any event, the judge impermissibly modified a division of marital property. We affirm.
1. Changed circumstances. At the time of the divorce, the judge made findings concerning the four children of the parties. Their ages at that time were: Sophie, age twenty-two, Caroline, age twenty, Elizabeth, age eighteen, and Michelle, age seven and a half. Sophie was emancipated and her health was not discussed. As to the others, he found that Elizabeth and Michelle were healthy and good students and that Caroline had psychological problems.
The findings at the time of both the divorce and modification hearings indicate that the relations between family members were unusually stressful and abnormal. The parties were married in Israel and lived in Holland for six years before coming to this country in 1969. They "were caught between their foreign upbringing and the current culture in this country and they could not cope with the pressures." Their arguments became so severe that all communication between them broke down. They still do not speak to each other, and the father, by the time of the divorce, had lost all contact with the three older children. The judge found that he had been unable to adjust to his children as they grew older and had expected "a great deal more from the children than their American environment would allow them to give."
"The change in circumstances since the time of the divorce is the fact that it was anticipated at the time of the divorce that the father, the defendant in this matter, would have contact with the children and would provide some psychological support for them. However, since the separation, since the divorce, the defendant has refused to contact the children." As there was no evidence at the modification hearing that the father had represented that he would see the children after the divorce, the judge's focus on what might have been anticipated is not a valid basis for finding a change in circumstances.
Despite this misstatement, we think it apparent from the evidence and the judge's written memorandum that it was Elizabeth's illness subsequent to the divorce which triggered the finding of a material change. Her depression, following upon Caroline's, strongly suggested that the disease was genetic and that Michelle was a child at risk. The judge was warranted in finding that this increased risk to Michelle made remaining in the marital home of unusual importance to her psychological well being. There was a material change in circumstances. See Verdone v. Verdone, 346 Mass. 263 , 265 (1963); Heistand v. Heistand, 384 Mass. 20 , 26 (1981); Bush v. Bush, 402 Mass. 406 , 411 (1988); Pagar v. Pagar, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 1 , 2 (1980); Davidson v. Davidson, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 364 , 366-367 (1985).
2. Is there here an impermissible modification of a final equitable division? The answer to this question is more difficult. The divorce judgment effected an equitable division as well as providing for alimony and child support. "The parties to a divorce may not relitigate the division of property that already has been the subject of a proceeding under G. L. c. 208, Section 34." Bush v. Bush, 402 Mass. at 409. Maze v. Mihalovich, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 323 , 326 (1979). Davidson v. Davidson, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 367.
The divorce judgment provided that certain real estate be sold immediately. As to the marital home, however, the wife was given "the exclusive right to use the marital domicile . . . until August 1, 1988." The two-year provision was explained at the modification hearing by one of the psychiatrists, Dr. Norman Moss. He had, at the time of the divorce, testified that the children's well-being required a minimum stay in the home of two years.
[Note 1] The evidence came from Elizabeth (in the form of her deposition admitted in evidence), from her mother, and from two psychiatrists. Beginning in January, 1987, Elizabeth lost a lot of weight, woke up in the morning shaking, "was just glad to go to bed at night so the next day would just come," and would cry for no reason. The two psychiatrists who had seen Caroline and Elizabeth diagnosed both as having "major" depressive illnesses. The diseases were described as chemical disorders, very likely to be genetic, "an illness that runs in the family."
"[I]n a family with a history of depression in two of the children, there is a history of family vulnerability. In such instances, where the youngest child has not yet reached the age at which the older children have become depressed, she is also likely to be . . . a child with an added risk for depression or vulnerability . . . . Where she is in a family where there is depression, other people are likely to follow, to be vulnerable . . . . [M]ore than usual it seems to me in this case the continuity of home, family, neighbors and friends are important. . . . [Distance] has particular relevance when we are talking about a nine-year old child who has a modest, but not large, scope of mobility . . . . Clearly the older [Michelle] is at the time that she leaves the home, the better."
Dr. Grunebaum also testified that Mrs. Hartog is an anxious woman unsupported by an extended family living in the area and therefore other forms of support such as the home, the school, the neighborhood and the friends are important.
[Note 3] See. G. L. c. 208, Section 28.
[Note 4] Although statutory differences make comparisons with other jurisdictions difficult, it is of interest that cases elsewhere consider occupation of the marital home to be an element of support subject to modification and not a division of property which cannot be changed. See. e.g., Twardosky v. Twardosky, 113 N.H. 438, 439 (1973); Merrifield v. Merrifield, 122 N.H. 372, 374 (1982); Lamp v. Lamp, 81 Ill. 2d 364, 372 (1980). See also Clark v. McGuff, 426 So. 2d 453 (Ala. 1983); Tucker v. Tucker, 280 Ala. 608 (1967); Whitfield v. Hanks, 278 S.C. 165 (1982).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.