seal

Court Case Record CRYSTAL BALLARGEON vs. NICHOLAS LUPOLI 2014-P-1450 UID(a6f4)


CRYSTAL BALLARGEON vs. NICHOLAS LUPOLI Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2014-P-1450


 
Case Number2014-P-1450
Case TitleCRYSTAL BALLARGEON vs. NICHOLAS LUPOLI
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex Probate & Fam
CourtMiddlesex Probate & Fam
Court Address
Phone
Field Date01/08/2009
Close Date12/01/2015

Parties

CounselNameType
Kathleen Ryder, EsquireCrystal BallargeonPlaintiff/Appellee
Lisa Stern Taylor, Esquire Phyllis E. Federico, Esquire WithdrawnNicholas LupoliDefendant/Appellant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
09/19/2014 #1 ***Financially Statements IMPOUNDED***
09/19/2014 #2 Entered.
09/19/2014 #3 Notice of entry sent.
10/06/2014 #4 Docketing Statement received from Nicholas Lupoli. (Paper Filing)
10/08/2014 #5 RE#2: The within document is to be filed forthwith by emailing a PDF including any attachments and certificate of service to emotions@appct.state.ma.us *Notice.
10/10/2014 #6 Docketing Statement received from Nicholas Lupoli. ^
10/29/2014 #7 SERVICE of brief & appendix (1 vol) & 7 IMPOUNDED Appendices (1 vol) for Defendant/Appellant Nicholas Lupoli.
11/21/2014 #8 MOTION to extend brief due date of Crystal Ballargeon.
11/21/2014 #9 RE#5: Allowed to 12/12/2014. Notice sent.
11/28/2014 MOTION to withdraw as counsel for Nicholas Lupoli, filed by Phyllis E. Federico.
12/02/2014 RE#6: Allowed. *Notice.
12/12/2014 SERVICE of brief for Plaintiff/Appellee Crystal Ballargeon.
09/11/2015 Under consideration by Panel. (Berry, J., Grainger, J., Sullivan, J.).
11/03/2015 Decision: Rule 1:28 Judgment affirmed. (Berry, Grainger, Sullivan, JJ.). *Notice.
11/17/2015 PETITION for Rehearing, filed by Nicholas Lupoli
11/17/2015 Paper#9 forwarded to panel.
11/23/2015 RE#9: Denied. Under the 2013 Guidelines, the child support obligation for the portion of combined available income that exceeds $250,000 is in the discretion of the court. The judge explicitly noted the presumptive minimum applicable to that portion of income under of $250,000. The judge then exercised his discretion, under the 2013 Guidelines, with respect to income exceeding $2250,000, finding that the father had manipulated his income to "dupe" the court and that no modification of child support was warranted given the father's manipulation of financial assets. (Berry, Grainger, Sullivan, JJ.) *Notice.
12/01/2015 RESCRIPT to Trial Court.