Court Opinion

ID: 9399753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 14:07:23.789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:37.095083
License: Public Domain

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

                                                  22-P-480

                                DEBORAH OPERACH

                                       vs.

                                RICHARD PELTON.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       At issue is whether a Probate and Family Court judge erred

 by interpreting the parties' separation agreement to require the

 father to share certain payments with the mother.              Because we

 conclude the judge did not err, we affirm.

       Background.     In 2012, the parties executed a separation

 agreement that contained provisions dedicated to "settle and

 determine . . . [a]n equitable distribution of property."1

 Exhibit G(6) of the agreement, as pertinent to this appeal,

 provided:

       "6. [Father]'s Miscellaneous Investments. [Father] shall
       pay [Mother] 50% of any after tax net payment received from
       his investment in the purchase and or development of
       [certain] real estate . . . within 30 days of receipt from
       same . . . [and Father] shall provide [Mother] with all
       documentation relating to the receipt of funds and the

 1 These particular provisions of the separation agreement were
 incorporated but not merged with the judgment of divorce nisi.
    payment of any taxes, if any, associated with the
    respective properties/investments within 30 days of the
    receipt of said funds [emphasis added]."

    In June 2019 the mother filed her first complaint for

contempt alleging the father had failed to either account for or

provide her half of the "after tax net payment[s]" he had

received from investments subject to Exhibit G(6).   The judge

found the father guilty of contempt and ordered the father to

comply with the provision by providing fifty percent of the

payments to the mother.

    The mother filed her third complaint2 for contempt in July

2021, alleging the father continued to refuse to make the

required payments.   The father did not dispute that he had

received payments from the investments subject to division under

Exhibit G(6), that the payments were free from tax consequences,

or that he had entered into an agreement to continue to receive

such payments.   However, the father argued that he had no

obligation to share the payments with the mother because they

did not qualify as "after-tax net payment[s]."   In support of

his position, the father maintained that the phrase "after-tax

2 On September 11, 2019, the mother filed her second complaint
for contempt, re-alleging that the father had failed to provide
her with either her share or an accounting of additional "after
tax net payments" he had received. The judge did not hold the
father in contempt after finding that, although the father had
negotiated for additional payments subject to Exhibit G(6), he
had not yet received them.

                                 2
net payment" was limited by its terms to any profits received on

the underlying investments, which would be calculated only after

the investment's principal -- a home equity loan assigned to the

father in the divorce -- was repaid.   The judge3 rejected the

father's interpretation of the provision and ordered him to pay

fifty percent of the sum of settlement payments he had received.4

The father timely appealed.

     Discussion.   The issue on appeal is whether the judge erred

by interpreting the parties' separation agreement as obligating

the father to provide fifty percent of the contested payments to

the mother.5   The father maintains his argument that the phrase

"after tax net payment" in Exhibit G(6) applies solely to any

profits from the investment, which would be calculated only

after the principal for the basis of the investment was repaid.

The mother counters that the father's interpretation is

3 The same judge presided over all three contempt hearings
described above.
4 The judge did not find the father to be in contempt.  We infer
from the record that the judge treated this third contempt
hearing as a continuation of the first and second contempt
proceedings and chose to clarify her previous formal
adjudication of contempt with her judgment. See Poras v.
Pauling, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 535, 543-544 (2007).
5 Although the father included two additional claims in his

brief, appealing (1) a guilty finding of contempt and (2) that
the provision at issue was ambiguous, at oral argument he (1)
conceded the judge did not find him guilty of contempt, (2)
waived his claim as to whether the provision at issue was
ambiguous, and (3) agreed the only issue is proper
interpretation of the separation agreement.

                                 3
erroneous since the provision at issue contains no such limiting

language.

     Interpreting the meaning of a term in a separation

agreement presents a question of law that we consider de novo.

Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398, 413 (2022).     Since the

provisions of the separation agreement at issue here were

incorporated but not merged in the divorce judgment, they retain

force as an independent contract.     See Krapf v. Krapf, 439 Mass.

97, 103 (2003).    "When contract language is unambiguous, it must

be construed according to its plain meaning."     Balles v. Babcock

Power Inc., 476 Mass. 565, 571–572 (2017).    See General

Convention of the New Jerusalem in the U.S. of Am., Inc. v.

MacKenzie, 449 Mass. 832, 835 (2007).    Justice, common sense,

and the probable intent of the parties guide the court's

construction of the agreement.    Fried v. Fried, 5 Mass. App. Ct.

660, 664 (1977).

     We begin our review by examining the language of the

separation agreement,6 as it provides the best evidence of the

parties' intent.   Duval v. Duval, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 752, 758

(2022).   See Robert Indus., Inc. v. Spence, 362 Mass. 751, 755

6 Our construction of the meaning of the language at issue is
informed by our recognition that the separation agreement
clearly represents a carefully drafted, comprehensive document
which incorporates the results of a negotiated settlement
between the parties, both of whom were represented by counsel.
See Fried, 5 Mass. App. Ct. at 663–664.

                                  4
(1973).    The language at issue here -- "after tax net

payments" -- is readily ascertainable, as each word has a well-

defined, commonly understood meaning, and the construction of

the phrase is equally unambiguous.    This provision provides that

the tax on any payment is the only deduction to which the father

is entitled.   Exhibit G(6) includes no other language qualifying

the payments, and we are not persuaded by the father's claim

that the parties intended the provision to be limited to "net

income" or "net profit," since the parties did not include such

meaningful and precise terms in the provision.    See, e.g.,

Fried, 5 Mass. App. Ct. at 663 n.3 (if parties intended college

payments in addition to child support, "then they could

reasonably have been expected to use language which was

indicative of that result").    In determining the meaning of the

provision's language, we are mindful to refrain from altering

the parties' agreement by adding terms the parties did not

include.   Rogaris v. Albert, 431 Mass. 833, 835 (2000).    See

Robbins v. Krock, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 134, 138-139 (2008) (parties

are bound by language they chose).

    Additionally, the father has offered no authority

supporting his definition of the term "payment," and we conclude

that "a fair reading of the agreement would not support the

[father]'s interpretation, nor raise a question as to the

agreement's meaning such that reasonable minds might differ."

                                  5
Colorio v. Marx, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 382, 388-389 (2008).     The

judge's determination that the agreement required the father to

provide fifty percent of whatever amounts he received as a

result of the specified investments to the mother, less any

taxes, is the only interpretation consistent with the plain

meaning of "after tax net payment."   See Lieber v. President &

Fellows of Harvard College (No. 2), 488 Mass. 816, 823 (2022)

("When the words of a contract are clear, they control, and we

must construe them according to their plain meaning").

     The father's argument concerning the inclusion and force of

the home equity loan7 as subordinating the mother's stated

interest in the provision's allocation of payments is further

foreclosed when considering the separation agreement contains a

separate provision concerning that loan, which provides:

"[Father] shall be solely responsible to pay the outstanding

second mortgage or the Home Equity Line of Credit of record out

of his share of the net proceeds derived from the sale [of the

marital home]."   Thus, we decline to construe "after tax net

payments" as implicitly incorporating the repayment of the

father's home equity loan as a condition precedent to the

mother's stated interest in the payments since such an

interpretation would be contrary to the parties' explicit

7 We note that the father's financial statement from October 2021
does not list an outstanding home equity loan.

                                 6
agreement.   See Brigade Leveraged Capital Structures Fund Ltd.

v. PIMCO Income Strategy Fund, 466 Mass. 368, 376 (2013).     The

father's interpretation would require us to ignore the

independent legal significance of the terms of Exhibit G(6), and

essentially "alter[] what [these] divorcing parties have

provided for themselves."    McCarthy v. McCarthy, 36 Mass. App.

Ct. 490, 492 (1994).

     Examining Exhibit G(6)'s plain language in the context of

the entire separation agreement, the provision unambiguously

requires the father to account for and share the settlement

payments with the mother, excepting only any taxes on the

payments.    See Duval, 101 Mass. App. Ct. at 757-758, and cases

cited.   Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

     The mother's request for attorney's fees and costs pursuant

to paragraph twelve of the separation agreement is allowed.8

Consistent with the procedure set forth in Fabre v. Walton, 441

Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004), the mother may file an application for

appellate attorney's fees and cost within fourteen days of the

8 Paragraph twelve provides, "Each party agrees to fully
indemnify and hold the other harmless from any liability that
may be occasioned by her respective breach of an obligation
contained in this Agreement, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses incurred as a result of such breach,
or as a result of resisting or defending any claims or demands
made by the breaching Party."

                                  7
issuance of the rescript.   The father will have fourteen days

thereafter to respond.9

                                    Contempt judgment entered
                                      October 21, 2021, affirmed.

                                    By the Court (Wolohojian,
                                      Neyman & Smyth, JJ.10),

                                    Clerk

Entered:   June 6, 2023.

9 The mother's request for sanctions against father is denied.
We likewise deny father's request for fees and costs.
10 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                8