Court Opinion

ID: 9891651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 14:16:01.339634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:02.193354
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-1103

              IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FRED W. KUHN.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       The defendant, Donald C. Kupperstein, appeals from a

 contempt judgment issued by the Probate and Family Court

 ordering the payment of unpaid sanctions entered pursuant to

 prior contempt orders.       We affirm.

       Background.     This case stems from numerous prior

 proceedings, the facts of which are well known to the parties

 and need not be repeated in detail here. 1           Relevant here, the

 October 28, 2021, contempt judgement at issue in the present

 case follows years of litigation that arose from a lien that the

 Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services

 1 The background facts, procedural history, and details regarding
 the defendant's conduct, prior judicial findings, and prior
 court orders are delineated in earlier cases heard in
 Massachusetts Federal and State courts. See In re Kupperstein,
 994 F.3d 673, 674-677 (1st Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
 Kupperstein v. Schall, 142 S. Ct. 118 (2021); In re Kupperstein,
 943 F.3d 12, 15-21 (1st Cir. 2019); In re Kupperstein, U.S.
 Dist. Ct., Civil Nos. 18-11772-LTS and 18-11851-LTS (D. Mass.
 Apr. 22, 2020); Executive Office of Health & Human Servs. v.
 Thibodeau, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1125 (2020).
(EOHHS) placed on the real property of the estate of Fred Kuhn

located on Reservoir Street in Norton (property).     The bulk of

that litigation emanated from the defendant's efforts to evade

responsibility for the lien after he had claimed ownership of

the property. 2   See In re Kupperstein, 943 F.3d 12, 16-17 & n.3

(1st Cir. 2019) (Kupperstein I).      Ultimately, a judge of the

Probate and Family Court voided the defendant's claim of

ownership of the property and ordered him to pay to EOHHS all

monies received from the tenants to whom the defendant had

rented the property.    See In re Kupperstein, 994 F.3d 673, 674-

675 (1st Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Kupperstein v. Schall, 142

S. Ct. 118 (2021) (Kupperstein II).

     The judge subsequently issued an order holding the

defendant in contempt for failing to pay EOHHS pursuant to his

earlier order.    On January 11, 2018, the defendant filed for

bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

District of Massachusetts.    In the normal course, "a bankruptcy

filing triggers an automatic stay that halts lawsuits against

the debtor in other courts until a federal court ends the case

or lifts the stay."    Kupperstein I, 943 F.3d at 18.    On August

10, 2018, following protracted litigation concerning, inter

alia, the applicability and enforceability of the bankruptcy

2 Details regarding the manner by which the defendant obtained
the property may be found in the earlier cases.

                                  2
stay, the bankruptcy court granted EOHHS relief from the stay,

holding that the "probate court's contempt proceedings were

exempt from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4) because

they aimed 'to enforce [a] governmental unit's . . . police and

regulatory power.'"    Id. at 19.   Following various additional

proceedings in Federal courts, the First Circuit addressed

"[t]he core dispute" of "whether the probate court's contempt

proceedings and resultant penalties are excepted from the

automatic stay (as the bankruptcy court held they were)."

Kupperstein II, 994 F.3d at 678-679.    The First Circuit held

that the bankruptcy court "did not abuse its discretion when

lifting the stay as it applied to the probate court's contempt

proceedings because those proceedings were excepted from the

stay under the police power exception," and further stated that

the bankruptcy court's decisions "were correct."     Id. at 682.

     Thereafter, on October 28, 2021, the Probate and Family

Court judge issued a judgment on yet another complaint for

contempt. 3   That judgment required the defendant to pay "$75,000

plus statutory interest for unpaid contempt sanctions entered

pursuant to prior orders of [the] court."    The judgment further

3 Our review of this matter is hampered by the incomplete and
often confusing appellate record submitted by the defendant.
Nonetheless, there is no dispute that the defendant did not
comply with multiple orders of the Probate and Family Court and
that the judge entered multiple judgments of contempt against
the defendant.

                                    3
ordered the defendant to pay to EOHHS "the sum of $12,000" from

an individual retirement account held in the defendant's name,

and to make monthly payments "in the amount of $400.00 per

month . . . until [the judgment is] paid in full." 4    Although not

entirely clear, the defendant argues, in essence, that the judge

issued the contempt judgment in violation of the bankruptcy

stay.

     Discussion.   1.   Standard of review.   "We review a judge's

ultimate finding of contempt for an abuse of discretion, and we

subject questions of law to plenary review."      Department of

Revenue Child Support Enforcement v. Grullon, 485 Mass. 129, 134

(2020).   "A Probate and Family Court judge has the power and

authority to find a person in contempt."      Id. at 133.   See G. L.

c. 215, § 34.   A finding of civil contempt must be established

by "clear and convincing evidence of disobedience of a clear and

unequivocal command."    Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 838-

839 (2009).

     2.   Issue preclusion.   The central issue in the present

case is whether the defendant's claims were already litigated

and decided in the prior Federal court actions and thus barred

under the doctrine of res judicata.   Res judicata is a term that

4 Although the defendant appeals from the October 28, 2021,
contempt judgment, much of his argument focuses on the
proceedings between January 2018, when he filed for bankruptcy,
and August 2018, when the bankruptcy court lifted the stay.

                                  4
includes claim preclusion and issue preclusion.    See Mancuso v.

Kinchla, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 564 (2004).    "The doctrine of

issue preclusion provides that when an issue has been 'actually

litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the

determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is

conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties whether on

the same or different claim.'"     Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526,

530-531 (2002), quoting Cousinou v. Laramee, 388 Mass. 859, 863

n.4 (1983).   See Alicea v. Commonwealth, 466 Mass. 228, 235-236

(2013) ("[A] State court's practice of giving preclusive effect

to a Federal court's decision, and vice versa, promote 'the

comity between [S]tate and [F]ederal courts that has been

recognized as a bulwark of the [F]ederal system'" [citation

omitted]).

     Here, the defendant's argument that the contempt

proceedings violated the bankruptcy stay was actually litigated

in Federal court proceedings, is identical to issues adjudicated

in those proceedings, and was essential to the decisions in

those proceedings.   See Kupperstein II, 994 F.3d at 678-682.

     a.   Actually litigated.    "In determining whether an issue

was actually litigated for preclusion purposes, courts ask

whether the issue was 'subject to an adversary presentation and

consequent judgment that was not a product of the parties'

consent.'"    Martinez v. Waldstein, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 341, 345

                                   5
(2016), quoting Jarosz, 436 Mass. at 531.    See Restatement

(Second) of Judgments § 27 & comment d (1982) (Restatement).     In

the Federal court matters, the issue of whether the contempt

proceedings in the Probate and Family Court violated the

automatic stay was fully litigated.    Indeed, an essential issue

in the First Circuit's consideration of the bankruptcy court's

grant of relief from the stay was the stay's applicability to

the Probate and Family Court's contempt proceedings.

Furthermore, that issue was identical to the issue now raised in

the present appeal by the defendant.   See Kupperstein II, 994

F.3d at 681-682 ("The core dispute is whether the probate

court's contempt proceedings and resultant penalties are

excepted from the automatic stay [as the bankruptcy court held

they were]").   As noted above, the First Circuit determined that

"the probate court's contempt orders are excepted from the

automatic stay under the police power exception."    Id. at 681.

Thus, the issue was "subject to an adversary presentation and

consequent judgment," Jarosz, supra, and therefore was actually

litigated.   See Restatement, supra ("When an issue is properly

raised . . . and is submitted for determination, and is

determined, the issue is actually litigated").

     b.   Essential to the judgment.   The issue of the automatic

stay's applicability to the Probate and Family Court's

proceedings was also essential to a determination of the

                                 6
defendant's claim that the bankruptcy court's decision lifting

the stay constituted an abuse of discretion.    The defendant

could not have prevailed on his claim without a decision as to

whether the State court contempt proceedings were excepted from

the stay.   Therefore, the issue whether the Probate Court's

contempt proceedings violated the stay was essential to the

First Circuit's determination that the "bankruptcy court did not

abuse its discretion when lifting the stay as it applied to the

probate court's contempt proceedings because those proceedings

were excepted from the stay under the police power exception."

Kupperstein II, 994 F.3d at 682.

     c.   Finality.    A determination is considered final when

"the parties were fully heard, the judge's decision is supported

by a reasoned opinion, and the earlier opinion was subject to

review or was in fact reviewed" (citation omitted).     Jarosz, 436

Mass. at 533-534.     In holding that the bankruptcy court did not

abuse its discretion in lifting the automatic stay, as applied

to the Probate and Family Court's contempt proceedings, the

First Circuit issued a valid and final judgment.     Kupperstein

                                   7
II, 994 F.3d at 682. 5   Accordingly, the defendant's claims are

barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. 6

                                      Contempt judgment entered
                                        December 7, 2021, affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Rubin, Neyman &
                                        Walsh, JJ. 7),

                                      Clerk

Entered:   October 19, 2023.

5 To the extent we do not discuss other arguments made by the
parties, they have not been overlooked. "We find nothing in
them that requires discussion." Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332
Mass. 66, 78 (1954).
6 In any event, when this case was previously before a panel of

this court, and as the panel noted in its memorandum and order
in that case, the defendant agreed that the question of the
applicability of the automatic stay was one for the Federal
courts, and not this court. That remains the case. See
Executive Office of Health & Human Servs. v. Thibodeau, 97 Mass.
App. Ct. 1125 (2020).
7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  8