ROMANOVA v. BERDNIKOV (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

In this divorce case, the plaintiff former wife (wife) brought a contempt action, and the judge found the former husband (husband) in contempt. The contempt judgment stated in the fourth numbered paragraph:

“That as to the properties commonly known as and located at 141820 Moscow Region, Dimitrov District, Ovsyannikovo, Russia, and 13-4-580 Flotskaya Street Moscow[,] Russia, upon sale of the above Longmeadow property the sum of $33,969.16 shall be paid to plaintiff in lieu of any interests to these two properties and defendant shall retain these two properties, this action taken as a contempt remedy.”

The husband has appealed the contempt judgment, but his challenge is very limited. His only argument is that paragraph 4 of the order should explicitly state that, upon payment of the $33,969.16 by the husband, the wife must execute the necessary documents to transfer all her interests in the two subject properties to the husband. The wife, for her part, does not contest that the husband should get the properties, upon payment. The wife states that the first property, at 141820 Moscow Region, is already “owned only in the [h]usband's name.” As to the second property, she states that “[t]he [w]ife is willing to give up her interest in this property. Further, if Russian law requires any further documentation, besides the court judgment, as to the [w]ife's surrender of her interest, the wife is willing to sign any documents that the [h]usband presents to her requiring her signature.”

Discussion. It is evident from the parties' briefs in this court that the parties do not dispute what the outcome should be here. Upon sale of the Longmeadow property, the husband must pay the wife the stated sum, and the wife must transfer any interest she has in each of the properties to the husband. There is evident disagreement between the parties as to the details, however (for example, whether the wife owns any interest in the 141820 Moscow Region property), and the judgment does not contain an explicit direction that the wife must transfer any interest she has in each property to the husband. Under the circumstances the judgment appears to be in need of clarification.

Contrary to the wife's argument, it is within our power to order such clarification on appeal. Accordingly, paragraph number 4 of the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Probate and Family Court. On remand, the judge should take whatever further submissions he deems necessary, and then revise paragraph 4 of the judgment in a manner consistent with this memorandum and order. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

So ordered.