NISSENBAUM’S STANDARD SET OF
SUMMARIES OF LAW - DIVORCE
WARNING! THIS IS A DISCLAIMER! NOTHING ON THE WEB SITE IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE NATURE OF LEGAL ADVISE, NOR IS THE INFORMATION PROVIDED NECESSARILY UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE LATEST MASSACHUSETTS CASES OR CASES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHICH MAY EFFECT THEIR CASE. YOU MUST CONTACT THE LAWYERS AT Wendy Hickey Law OR OR ANOTHER EXPERT IN FAMILY LAW IN ORDER TO SEEK INDIVIDUAL LEGAL ADVICE ABOUT YOUR CASE.
11.1 At the time of issuing a judgment, the trial judge dividing marital property must make express findings indicating that all relevant statutory factors have been considered, Charrier v. Charrier, 416 Mass. 105, 616 N.E.2d 1085 (1993), whether or not findings of fact are requested by a party pursuant to Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 52. Mancuso v. Mancuso, 112 Mass. App. Ct. 973, 428 N.E.2d 339 (1981), rev. denied 385 Mass.1102, 440 N.E.2d 1174. King v. King, 373 Mass. 37, 364 N.E.2d 1218 (1977).
11.2 The trial justice should issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are supported by a rationale, in order to explain the judgment to the parties. Warman v. Warman, 484 N.E.2d 1345, 1347 (1985).
11.3 The reasons (i.e. the rationale) for the judge's conclusions must be apparent in the decision. Charrier v. Charrier, 416 Mass. 105, 616 N.E.2d 1085 (1993).
11.4 The findings must clearly indicate that the judge weighed all statutory factors set out in Section 34, Moran v. Moran, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 787, 360 N.E.2d 665 (1977), and no consideration of irrelevant matter or irrelevant facts. Denninger v. Denninger, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 429, 612 N.E.2d 262 (1993); Bowring v. Reid, 399 Mass. 265, 267 (1987). Redding v. Redding, 398 Mass. 102, 107 (1986). Brady v. Brady, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 43, 47 (1979). Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. 402-403 (1977).