MALONEYOVA v. MALONEY (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

As best can be discerned from the inadequate record in this case, Iveta Maloneyova (wife), the former spouse of Frank Maloney (husband), appeals from a judgment entered by a judge of the Probate and Family Court on the husband's complaint for contempt. The parties divorced in 2021 pursuant to a separation agreement in which they agreed that, for the purpose of claiming any Federal or State child tax credit, the wife would claim one of their two children as a dependent when filing taxes and the husband would claim the other. The agreement further provided that “[a]fter one of the children is emancipated, the parties shall alternate the remaining child with [the] [h]usband getting the child the first year and the [w]ife getting the child the next year.” In 2024, the husband filed a complaint for contempt alleging that the wife claimed both children on her 2023 tax return, which cost the husband $2,000. After a hearing, the judge found the wife guilty of contempt and ordered that the husband may claim both children for tax year 2025.

“We review the judge's ultimate finding of contempt for abuse of discretion, but we review underlying conclusions of law de novo and underlying findings of fact for clear error.” Jones v. Jones, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 673, 688 (2022), quoting Commercial Wharf E. Condominium Ass'n v. Boston Boat Basin, LLC, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 523, 532 (2018). The wife does not suggest that the judge clearly erred in finding that, notwithstanding the “clear language” in the separation agreement, she “claimed both children on her 2023 income tax return [without] permission to do so.” Rather, she maintains that she “needed to claim both children despite the agreement, in order to alleviate the additional financial burden related to childcare caused by [the husband's] not sharing his financial obligations,” and that the judge “failed to follow Federal law about child credit tax” and “failed to investigate all the facts presented by [the wife] in order to clarify the reasons for claiming both children on [her] tax return, despite the divorce agreement.” The wife asks us to vacate the contempt judgment against her, direct that a new judgment be entered in her favor, and modify the underlying divorce judgment to allow her to claim both children as dependents on her tax returns starting in 2024.

The wife's appeal fails because she has not presented this court with a record showing any claimed error. See Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019); Buckmore v. Czelusniak Funeral Home, Inc., 427 Mass. 1014, 1014 (1998); Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 83-84 (1995) (appellant claiming legal error bears burden of providing record support for own argument). She has not provided the court with the divorce judgment, a full copy of the separation agreement, any of the parties’ financial statements, her answer to the husband's complaint for contempt, or the transcript of any hearing in this matter. In particular, without a record of the evidence presented or representations made to the judge at the hearing on the husband's complaint for contempt -- including facts and evidence pertaining to the husband's alleged failure to share his financial obligations -- we have no basis to conclude that the judge erred or otherwise abused his discretion in finding her guilty of contempt. “[The] appellant's obligation to include those parts of the trial transcript and copies of motions ‘which are essential for review of the issues raised on appeal ․ is a fundamental and long-standing rule of appellate civil practice’ ” (citation omitted). Cameron, supra at 84. Moreover, the allegations in the wife's brief lack supporting citation to the record or to legal authority. See Kellogg v. Board of Registration in Med., 461 Mass. 1001, 1003 (2011). See also Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). Although the wife is self-represented, she is still required to comply with the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Brossard v. West Roxbury Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 417 Mass. 183, 184 (1994). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the judgment of contempt.

Judgment dated February 3, 2025, affirmed.