DocketNumber: 16–P–1284
Citation Numbers: 94 N.E.3d 437, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1109
Filed Date: 10/16/2017
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
Following a trial in the Probate and Family Court, Terry Gexler was ordered to transfer fifty percent of his pension to his former wife, Leasa Roberts. He appeals, claiming Roberts's postdivorce property division complaint was barred by the doctrines of laches, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Background. The parties executed a separation agreement (agreement) which was incorporated into a judgment of divorce nisi in January of 2001. The agreement divided the following assets: marital home, automobiles, personal property, and an escrow account containing proceeds from Gexler's worker's compensation claim.
Laches. Gexler's reliance on the doctrine of laches is misplaced. This is an action for a postdivorce division of assets, as specifically contemplated by G. L. c. 208, § 34. An action for the division of property may be brought at any time after divorce, and therefore the defenses of laches is not available. Brash v. Brash,
Res judicata and collateral estoppel. At issue here is whether the parties contemplated and actually litigated the division of Gexler's pension. See Maze v. Mihalovich,
Roberts testified that she believed no pension remained after Gexler received his worker's compensation settlement and that she learned of the pension years later, which prompted her to bring this action. The judge credited Roberts's testimony and did not credit Gexler's testimony. Accordingly, she found the issue of the pension had not been litigated and that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply. Issues of credibility are within the purview of the trial court judge and should not be disturbed on appeal. See Pierce v. Pierce,
Judgment dated October 27, 2015, affirmed.
Gexler has raised no issue with respect to the judge's analysis conducted pursuant to G. L. c. 208, § 34, and therefore we need not address it.
Gexler had worked for United Parcel Service (UPS) for two years before injuring his ankle. Both the pension and worker's compensation settlement flow from his employment at UPS.
The judge found Gexler's testimony contradictory and confusing, as he testified both that his pension was an asset and was not an asset, and that his worker's compensation settlement was not divisible despite the agreement providing for its division.
We have examined all of Gexler's points and arguments. That we have not discussed them means simply that "[w]e find nothing in them that requires discussion." Commonwealth v. Domanski,