Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A Canadian couple moved to Massachusetts with their two young children after both were granted E-2 non-immigrant visas to work at a family business expanding into the United States. Their move was described as a trial, intended to assess whether they liked living in the U.S. and to help launch the business. They left most possessions in Canada and maintained financial and familial ties there. After selling their Canadian home, they bought a condominium in Massachusetts. Over time, the spouses developed differing intentions about making the United States their permanent home. The father struggled to adapt to life in Massachusetts and expressed his desire to return to Canada, while the mother wished to stay. In August 2024, after the father traveled to Canada, the mother withdrew funds from joint accounts, changed the locks on the home, and refused to let the children visit their father in Canada.Subsequently, the mother filed for divorce in Massachusetts, and the father counterclaimed for custody and removal of the children to Canada. Temporary custody arrangements were made. The father then filed applications under the Hague Convention in both Canada and the United States, alleging wrongful retention of the children. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a hearing and concluded that the mother’s actions amounted to wrongful retention under the Hague Convention, finding that the children’s “habitual residence” remained Canada. The court ordered the children returned to Canada.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision, applying clear error review to the findings of fact. The court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly identified Canada as the children’s habitual residence as of the date of wrongful retention. The court also rejected the mother’s defenses of “now-settled,” consent, and acquiescence, finding no clear error in the district court’s determinations. The judgment ordering the return of the children to Canada was affirmed. View "Giguere v. Tardif" on Justia Law

A woman and her husband, after marrying, received a parcel of real estate from her parents, which they held as tenants by the entirety in Massachusetts. They planned and undertook substantial renovations, initially funded by gifts from the husband’s parents. When those funds ran out, the husband’s parents provided over $1.5 million more, which was later documented as a loan in a promissory note signed only by the husband, not the wife. The couple’s marriage deteriorated, leading to divorce proceedings. During the divorce, the husband’s parents obtained a default judgment against the husband (but not the wife) for the loan and secured a writ of execution against his interest in the property, which was recorded. After the divorce, the family court awarded the property solely to the wife, free from any claim by the husband, and clarified that it could not adjudicate the parents’ rights under the promissory note.Subsequently, the husband’s parents transferred their judgment to a family trust, which noticed a sheriff’s sale of the husband’s purported interest in the property. The wife sued in state court to stop the sale, the case was removed to federal court, and both sides sought summary judgment. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the wife, holding that the divorce and property distribution extinguished the creditor’s interest and that, even if the loan were valid, the wife was not jointly liable because the funds were not spent on “necessaries” under Massachusetts law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s prediction of state law concerning the effect of divorce on a creditor’s interest and remanded for factual findings on the validity of the loan as to the wife. The court also found that neither preclusion nor the state’s domestic relations exception barred the wife’s challenge, and that factual disputes remained as to whether the loan was spent on necessaries. The court affirmed, reversed, and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Cosel v. Wendt" on Justia Law

Approximately two years after Jessica Silveira da Silva brought her minor son, A.R., to the United States, A.R.'s father, Edervaldo Rodrigues da Silva, initiated proceedings in federal court to return A.R. to Brazil under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Rodrigues proved that A.R. had been wrongfully removed, and Silveira invoked the "now settled" defense, arguing that A.R.'s extensive ties to the community in Lowell, Massachusetts, weighed against returning him to Brazil.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a three-day bench trial and ultimately concluded that A.R. was not settled in the United States. The court found that although A.R. had lived in Lowell for over two years, attended the same school, and had some family and community ties, these factors did not sufficiently demonstrate that A.R. was settled. The court ordered Silveira to return A.R. to Brazil.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's findings. The appellate court held that the district court erred in concluding that A.R. was not settled in the United States. The First Circuit found that the totality of the circumstances, including A.R.'s age, stable home environment, consistent school attendance, and community involvement, demonstrated that A.R. was indeed settled. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for the district court to decide whether to exercise its equitable discretion to order A.R.'s return to Brazil despite his settled status. View "Rodrigues da Silva v. Silveira da Silva" on Justia Law

David Efron and Madeleine Candelario were involved in a divorce proceeding and a pending marital property division proceeding before the superior court of Puerto Rico. In the divorce proceeding, the superior court ordered Efron, the sole owner of the Law Offices of David Efron, P.C. (the Efron Firm), to pay almost $5.5 million plus interest to Candelario. When Efron refused to pay, Candelario resorted to garnishing funds owned by Efron. In a separate case, the Efron Firm secured a settlement for its clients, and the defendants deposited the Efron Firm’s attorney’s fees in the federal district court registry. In the meantime, in the divorce proceeding, the court issued an order garnishing amounts owed to Efron. Candelario requested that the district court transfer the amounts deposited in the district court registry pursuant to the settlement in the separate case. The superior court granted the request. The First Circuit reversed, holding that funds in the federal court registries are protected under the doctrine of custodia legis from garnishment or attachment by a state court. Remanded. View "Law Offices of David Efron, PC v. Candelario" on Justia Law

A Massachusetts district court awarded damages to Dawn Irish arising out of her divorce from Craig Irish and the separation agreement filed in their divorce proceeding. Dawn later filed a complaint in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, alleging various contract, tort, and fraud claims against Craig for Craig’s alleged failure to fully disclose his assets or deal in good faith during the negotiation of the parties’ separation agreement. The federal court exercised jurisdiction over the claims, and Craig appealed. The First Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the domestic relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction. Remanded for dismissal of the action, with prejudice as to federal jurisdiction and without prejudice as to the assertion of claim in an appropriate state court. View "Irish v. Irish" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a group of individuals and advocacy groups, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Article 68 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico and other laws of the Commonwealth that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. After the lower court dismissed Petitioners’ claims, the United States Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges. All parties subsequently agreed that the Commonwealth’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The First Circuit agreed and vacated the judgment. On remand, however, the district court did not enter judgment in favor of Petitioners but, instead, issued a memorandum concluding that the Commonwealth’s ban was not unconstitutional because the “right to same-sex marriage” had not been determined to apply in Puerto Rico. Petitioners requested a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to enter judgment in their favor striking down the ban as unconstitutional. Respondents moved for leave to join in Petitioners’ request. The First Circuit granted Petitioners’ petition for writ of mandamus and Respondents’ motion to join in the petition, holding that the district court erred in ruling that the ban is not unconstitutional and directly contradicted the First Circuit’s mandate and compounded its error by failing to enter a final judgment to enable an appeal in ordinary course. View "In re Conde-Vidal" on Justia Law