Her true love, besides her husband George, was spending time with her friends and family, of which there were many. Karen is survived by her husband George; her son Ken and his girlfriend Amy Scrivens, her daughter Kristen and her husband Dr. She was expecting to be a proud grandmother in the near future. Karen is also survived by many nieces and nephews to whom she opened her heart and home.
Burial will follow in Lakeview Cemetery in East Hampton. East Hampton, CT George and the rest of Karen's family would like to thank the staff at Hartford Hospital for their extraordinary skill and compassion throughout the last few days. To leave online condolences please visit www. A service summary is not available.
Home Home. Obituaries All Obituaries. Directions Directions. A year of daily grief support.
Stay up to date with the latest on the law!
Your Email Address. We reject the husband's various contentions that the judge erred in determining the parties' respective financial circumstances, which he says led to an excessive support award. He first argues that the wife's "financial status has improved But although the wife testified that she received monetary gifts from her father in the past, we see nothing in the record that would require the judge to treat such gifts as a regular stream of income for purposes of calculating child support. See Fehrm-Cappuccino , 90 Mass. And with respect to the husband's claim that the wife failed to disclose assets on her financial statement, he has neglected to provide appropriate record references in support, as required by Mass.
The only assets he even identifies are certain trust accounts, but the evidence showed that the money in those accounts belonged to the wife's father and was not accessible to her.
We are unable to discern what other missing assets the husband is referring to in his brief. The husband also contends that the judge erred in determining his financial status. The judge's "material error," he asserts, "was in finding that a portion of [his] gross income was from stock awards because the entire basis for the increase in child support Furthermore, while the judge may have incorrectly characterized the nature of the husband's income in which was derived from a combination of Mercury severance pay and Philips salary , we do not read the judge's findings to rest on an assumption that the husband would continue to have stock award income after leaving Mercury.
To the contrary, the judge acknowledged that the husband's income in was "unusually high" because of the stock awards. Although the husband argues that the wife waived her right to share in any stock award income he received after the divorce, the bifurcated modification judgment does not expressly require the husband to pay support to the wife from such income.
Guide The Extraordinary Karen Cooper
Moreover, while it is true that the wife waived any ownership interest in the husband's future stock awards for purposes of the property division, there is no indication in the separation agreement that the wife waived her right to seek child support based on any future stock income. Indeed, "even if the [wife] did waive her right to any interest in the income at issue, that waiver could not operate to waive her children's right to child support from that income.
Hoegen , 89 Mass. In the end, although the judge's calculations may not have been a model of clarity, we conclude that any errors she may have made were harmless. Because one of the three children in the wife's custody was nearly eighteen when the bifurcated modification judgment entered in November of , any support ordered for her was arguably discretionary, rather than presumptive. Based on our review of the record, however, it is apparent that the husband did not adequately raise this argument below.
We therefore deem it waived. See Carey v.
karen cooper (karenc) on Pinterest
New England Organ Bank , Mass. Moreover, even if there were no waiver, the husband's argument would be unavailing given that the original alimony judgment predated the act, thus requiring the judge to apply "the terms and standards of modification existing at the time the judgment entered.
- Benevolent Living: Tracing the Roots of Motivation to God.
- Karen Cooper Pfaffenbach.
- Unterwegs - Der Wanderer (German Edition).
- KAREN COOPER COMPLEX.
- Curious George 2: Follow That Monkey!!
- Similar authors to follow.
- WWI armistice was coded by local realtor.
Merriot , Mass. With one exception not pertinent here, "[a]limony judgments entered prior to the In this case the judge found there to be no material change in either the wife's need for alimony or in the husband's ability to pay. See Pierce v.
It Takes Two | Celebrity Dancer - Karen Cooper, DO - GroundWorks DanceTheater
Pierce , Mass. Gottsegen , Mass. Specifically, the judge found that, while the wife "failed to show that she has an increased need" for alimony, she "has no reasonable opportunity to earn income Cooper , 62 Mass. Huddleston , 51 Mass. The husband's request in his reply brief to strike the statement of facts in the wife's brief is allowed.
We have not considered the statement in reaching our decision. To the extent that we do not address the husband's other contentions, they "have not been overlooked.
We find nothing in them that requires discussion. Ryan R. Domanski , Mass. The wife's appeal. The wife appeals from the order denying her motion for relief from judgments pursuant to Mass. Rule 60 b authorizes relief from a final judgment on a variety of grounds, including "mistake," "fraud," and other extraordinary circumstances.
Rule 60 b cannot be used as a substitute for a normal appeal, however. See, e. Garabedian , Mass. Boykan , Mass. As the wife conceded at oral argument, the issues raised in her rule 60 b motion could have been raised through appealing from the underlying judgments. She appealed from none of them. Thus, the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion. See Tai v. Boston , 45 Mass.
Although the wife's motion also sought relief under rule 60 a "[c]lerical [m]istakes" , that part of the rule is not at issue on appeal. This rule is identical to Mass. Bifurcated modification judgment dated November 3, , affirmed. Order dated November 18, , denying motion to alter and amend bifurcated modification judgment, affirmed. Order dated November 13, , denying rule 60 relief, affirmed. Back to Results. Download Print Get alerts. Cooper v.
Related The Extraordinary Karen Cooper
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved