Asia Denise Thompson v. Joey Dwayne Thompson.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

24-P-338

ASIA DENISE THOMPSON

vs.

JOEY DWAYNE THOMPSON.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After approximately two years of marriage, Asia Denise

Thompson (wife) filed a complaint for divorce from Joey Dwayne

Thompson (husband). Following a trial, a judge of the Probate

and Family Court issued a judgment of divorce nisi. The husband

appeals, claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

numerous errors in the judgment. We affirm.

The husband and the wife were married in Tennessee in 2018

and have one minor child together. On or around August 31,

2019, the wife and the minor child left Tennessee and moved to

Massachusetts. In June 2020, the wife filed a complaint for

divorce, alleging that an irretrievable breakdown of their

marriage occurred on August 31, 2019. The wife filed a motion
to amend the complaint, which was allowed on February 24, 2022,

claiming that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage

occurred on May 28, 2020. On appeal, the husband claims that

judge erred in (1) denying his motion to dismiss the complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the wife had not

resided in Massachusetts for one year at the time she filed for

divorce and (2) permitting the wife to amend her complaint to

meet the alternative jurisdictional requirements of G. L.

c. 208, § 5. The husband also claims error in the amount of

child support and the division of assets provided for in the

divorce judgment, as well as the timing of his receipt of that

judgment and its form.

An appellant (in this case the husband) bears the burden of

presenting appellate arguments and producing a record appendix

that are adequate for appellate review. See Mass. R. A. P.

16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019); Mass.

R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019). The

rule "is more than a 'mere technicality. It is founded on the

sound principle that the right of a party to have this court

consider a point entails a duty; that duty is to assist the

court with argument and appropriate citation of authority.'"

Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 85-86 (1995), quoting

Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 14 (1958).

2
Here, the husband's appellate arguments lack support of any

case law or reference to any standard of review. He failed to

provide the court with citations to the record and, more

problematically, he failed to provide the court with pertinent

portions of the hearing transcripts. See Mass. R. A. P.

18 (b) (4). See also Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585, 604

n.26 (2009). For example, in his informal brief, the husband

claims the judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss the

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He cites no

legal authority to support his contention. However, even if the

court were inclined to overlook this fact and consider the

merits of the husband's claim, we are unable to do so because

the husband has failed to provide the court with the transcript

of the hearing or the wife's opposition to the motion to dismiss

and has only included the first page of his motion to dismiss.

Likewise, we are unable to review the substance of the divorce

judgment without the transcript of the trial.

In sum, the record does not provide us with any basis to

conduct a meaningful review of the judge's decisions. See Davis

v. Tabachnick, 425 Mass. 1010, 1010 (1997) (appellant not

entitled to review on claims where brief lacked citations to

support factual allegations, appendix lacked transcript or tape

recording of proceedings in court, and appellant provided no

3
other documents in support of his claims other than his

unsubstantiated assertions in his brief). While we recognize

the inherent challenges in proceeding pro se, parties

represented by counsel and pro se litigants are required to

present materials necessary for appellate review. See Brown v.

Chicopee Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 1710, IAFF, 408 Mass. 1003,

1004 n.4 (1990) ("Although some leniency is appropriate in

determining whether pro se litigants have complied with rules of

procedure, the rules nevertheless bind pro se litigants as all

other litigants").1

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Massing,
Walsh & Brennan, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: February 4, 2025.

1 The wife, claiming that the husband's appellate argument
is frivolous, has requested appellate attorney's fees. While
the wife's argument has some force, we decline to award
attorney's fees.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

4