seal

Court Case Record SANDEEP RAJGURU vs. ANNE-MARIE W. RAJGURU 2013-J-0218 UID(13eb)


SANDEEP RAJGURU vs. ANNE-MARIE W. RAJGURU Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-J-0218


 
Case Number2013-J-0218
Case TitleSANDEEP RAJGURU vs. ANNE-MARIE W. RAJGURU
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyWorcester Probate & Fam
CourtWorcester Probate & Fam
Court Address
Phone
Field Date06/06/2013
Close Date08/12/2013

Parties

CounselNameType
Russell P. Schwartz, EsquireSandeep RajguruPlaintiff/Respondent
Matthew Paul Blouin, EsquireAnne-Marie W. RajguruDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
06/06/2013 #1 Memo: *** Financial Statement and GAL Report - Impounded ***
06/06/2013 #2 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Anne-Marie W. Rajguru.
06/06/2013 #3 RE#1: Action on the within is stayed pending trial court action on the motion for relief from order scheduled for hearing 6/27/13. Status report to be filed on or before 7/5/13. *Notice/attest/Lian, Jr.
06/10/2013 #4 Motion for leave to file corrected petition for interlocutory relief, filed by Anne-Marie W. Rajguru. ^
06/12/2013 #5 RE#2: Allowed. *Notice
07/05/2013 #6 Status report, filed by Anne-Marie W. Rajguru. ^
07/05/2013 #7 RE#3: Action on the petition is stayed to 8/5/13. Status report due then concerning trial court's disposition of pending motion for relief. *Notice.
08/01/2013 #8 Motion for leave to file expanded record appendix on petition, filed by Anne-Marie W. Rajguru. ^
08/01/2013 Status report, filed by Anne-Marie W. Rajguru.^
08/01/2013 RE#5: Allowed. Further, the stay is vacated. The single justice shall consider the petition in due course. *Notice.
08/09/2013 Motion for leave to file second expanded record appendix on petition for interlocutory relief pursuant to G.L.c. 231 118 (first paragraph) of an order of the Worcester County Probate & Family Court (Lian, J.) dated May 2, 2013, filed by Anne-Marie W. Rajguru^
08/09/2013 Amended Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Anne-Marie W. Rajguru^
08/12/2013 ORDER: The defendant filed a petition pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 118 (first para.), seeking review of a Probate and Family Court judge's temporary order, dated May 2, 2013. In that petition, the defendant faulted the motion judge for not making written findings. However, after the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, the motion judge issued a second written order in which he explained that child support at the amount calculated under the guidelines was offset by the temporary alimony that would be payable by the defendant to her husband. The defendant then filed a revised petition in which she continues to claim that the motion judge erred when he considered an award of temporary alimony without entering written findings in support of an award of alimony pendente lite to the husband. The revised petition is denied. To succeed on a petition for interlocutory review, the petitioner must demonstrate that the motion judge committed a clear error of law or abused his discretion. In this case, the defendant has demonstrated neither. The cases relied upon by the defendant in support of her contention that a temporary order of alimony must be supported by sufficient written findings all relate to final orders of alimony. The motion judge, by declining to apply the same requirements to an order of alimony pendente lite, did not clearly err nor did he abuse his discretion. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. The petition is dismissed. So ordered. (Vuono, J.). *Notice/Attest/Lian, J.