Court Opinion

ID: 9956916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 14:06:49.883982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:58.832990
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

                                                  23-P-624

                                 CHARLES DAVIS

                                       vs.

      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       The plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his Superior

 Court complaint which sought to challenge the garnishment of his

 wages by the Department of Revenue (DOR) pursuant to a Probate

 and Family Court child support order.           On appeal, the plaintiff

 makes a variety of claims, none of which are properly before us.

 We affirm.

       Discussion.     Although the record does not contain a copy of

 the order, it appears that on January 6, 2023, a judge of the

 Probate and Family Court issued an order directing the plaintiff

 to pay child support in the amount of seventy-five dollars per

 week through wage assignment by the DOR.            Two months later, the

 plaintiff filed an action which he labeled as an "appeal,"

 apparently from this order, against the DOR in Superior Court.

 A Superior Court judge, sua sponte, scheduled a hearing on the
issue of the court's jurisdiction over the matter.       After the

hearing, the judge found that the Superior Court lacked

jurisdiction over the Probate and Family Court order;

jurisdiction rested in the Probate and Family Court; and an

appeal of the Probate and Family Court's decision would be to

the Massachusetts Appeals Court.       The judge dismissed the

Superior Court action, and the plaintiff now appeals from that

judgment of dismissal.

       The only issue properly before us is whether the Superior

Court had jurisdiction to modify the Probate and Family Court's

child support order, as that was the basis for the judge's

dismissal of the complaint.    However, the plaintiff did not

address the issue of jurisdiction in his brief, so the issue is

waived.    See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481

Mass. 1628 (2019).

       Even if the plaintiff had not waived the issue, the judge

correctly concluded that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The Probate and Family Court, and sometimes the District Court,

have jurisdiction over child support cases.       See G. L. c. 215,

§ 4.    The Superior Court does not have jurisdiction over child

support cases.    Id.   Under G. L. c. 209C, § 20, the Probate and

Family Court that enters a child support order retains

continuing jurisdiction to modify the order.       Pursuant to G. L.

c. 215, § 9, a party who is aggrieved by a judgment of the

                                   2
Probate and Family Court can appeal from that judgment to the

Appeals Court -- not to the Superior Court. 1   Therefore, the

judge properly dismissed the plaintiff's purported appeal.

                                      Judgment affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Meade, Neyman &
                                        Hand, JJ. 2),

                                      Assistant Clerk

Entered:    April 3, 2024.

1 To the extent the child support order is interlocutory, which
is not clear from the record, the plaintiff also could have
filed a petition for relief to a single justice pursuant to
G. L. c. 231, § 118.

2   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  3