Sonalika Rungta v. Vidur Dhanda.

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

22-P-398

SONALIKA RUNGTA

vs.

VIDUR DHANDA.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant-father appeals from multiple contempt

judgments and orders issued against him, all arising out of his

actions in claiming his minor child as a dependent on his 2020

and 2021 tax returns. The contempts all originate from a 2013

divorce judgment, which expressly provided the plaintiff-mother

with the right to claim the dependent on her tax returns. The

father contends that it was error to find him in contempt of

that 2013 judgment where the child began residing with him in

December of 2016, the mother began paying child support in

October of 2020, and legal custody was transferred from the

mother to the father in June of 2021. There is no dispute,

however, that the terms of the 2013 judgment had not been

modified as of the end of 2021 (indeed, as of that time, the

father had not moved for modification as to the tax dependency
issue). Because the father failed to comply with clear and

unequivocal court orders, we affirm.

Background. The parties were divorced in September 2013.

As relevant here, the divorce judgment granted the mother legal

and physical custody of the parties' child, as well as "the

right to claim the child for [F]ederal and [S]tate income tax

exemption/dependency purposes." Despite the divorce judgment's

provision of custody to the mother, around December of 2016, the

child began living full time with the father, with the mother's

acquiescence.

Years later, in April of 2021, the mother filed a contempt

complaint against the father because the father claimed the

child as a dependent on his 2020 tax returns. On June 3, 2021,

a judge of the Probate and Family Court issued a judgment (first

contempt judgment) finding the defendant in contempt, and

ordering the father (1) to file an amended 2020 tax return and

(2) to execute an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) form

"allocat[ing] to [the mother] the right to claim the minor child

for tax year 2020." The father did not appeal from the June 3,

2021 judgment. Shortly thereafter, on June 16, 2021, the judge

ruled on a modification complaint filed by the father in August

2019, and awarded the father "sole legal and physical custody of

the parties' minor child." In July 2021, the father filed a

motion for relief from the first contempt judgment, which the

2
judge denied by a margin endorsement on December 6, 2021.1 The

defendant noticed a timely appeal from the denial of his motion

for relief from judgment.

In July 2021, the mother filed a second contempt complaint

based on the father's failure to comply with the first contempt

judgment. In a judgment dated March 8, 2022 (second contempt

judgment), the judge found the father in contempt, ordered him

to file an amended 2020 tax return and to execute the relevant

IRS form, and ordered the father to pay $25 per day in sanctions

for each day after March 31, 2021 that the father failed to

comply with the judgment.2 The father timely noticed an appeal

from the second contempt judgment, and his two appeals were

consolidated for our consideration.

On March 30, 2022, the mother filed a third contempt

complaint, this time regarding the father's 2021 returns as well

as his 2020 tax returns. In an order dated October 13, 2022

(third contempt judgment), the judge again found the father in

contempt, and ordered him to file an amended tax return for the

1 Although the father's motion is dated July 2021, it does not
appear on the docket until September of that year. The father
claims that the trial court lost his initial filing.
2 In a second March 2022 order, the judge ordered the mother to

pay $225 per week in child support per the parties'
"[a]greement," and it appears that the mother is still subject
to that order. Although the record is unclear on this point, it
appears that the mother was also required to pay child support
in the same amount between October 29, 2020, and June 16, 2021.

3
2021 tax year, to execute the relevant IRS form, and to pay

$4,900 in sanctions. The judge found that the second contempt

judgment and the judgment of divorce "remain[ed] in full force

and effect." He reasoned that the second contempt judgment had

not been stayed, and that the 2013 divorce judgment's tax

provision had not been modified and was not subject to a pending

modification complaint as to that provision. After an

unsuccessful motion for relief from the third contempt judgment,

the father timely noticed his appeal therefrom, and successfully

moved a single justice of this court to consolidate that appeal

with his appeals concerning the first and second contempt

judgments.

Discussion. On appeal, the father contends that the

contempt judgments were improperly issued, primarily due to the

2016 shift in the child's living arrangements, and the June 2021

change in custody. He claims that these changes rendered the

divorce judgment's tax provision invalid, or at least made its

enforcement inequitable. "We review a judge's ultimate finding

of contempt for an abuse of discretion, and we subject questions

of law to plenary review." Department of Revenue Child Support

Enforcement v. Grullon, 485 Mass. 129, 134 (2020).

Civil contempt judgments may issue where a plaintiff shows

"(1) clear disobedience of (2) a clear and unequivocal command."

Smith v. Smith, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 361, 363 (2018). See

4
Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 851 (2009). Here, the

judge found in the first contempt judgment, in June of 2021,

that both elements were met, concluding (1) that the divorce

judgment contained a clear and unequivocal provision granting

the wife the right to claim the dependency exemption, and (2)

that the father disobeyed that command by claiming the child as

a dependent in tax year 2020. We discern no abuse of discretion

or error of law in those determinations. There is no indication

that the father sought (let alone received) modification of the

divorce judgment's tax provision on the bases of the child's

residency or custody before claiming the child as a dependent

for tax year 2020. Although the father points to his August

2019 modification complaint requesting custody of the child and

"[a]ny other remedy the court may deem fit," this vague catch-

all is not sufficiently specific to constitute a request to

modify the tax provision. Regardless, even if it could be read

as such a request, the tax dependency provision was not modified

and remained valid.

The father seemingly argues that his failure to secure

modification of the 2013 divorce judgment does not matter,

because the child's change in residency or legal custody

rendered the tax provision "invalid" as a matter of law. He

relatedly argues that allocation of the dependency exemption can

be accomplished only in connection with child support

5
determinations. We disagree. The one case the father cites for

those propositions, Iv v. Hang, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 598 (2013),

does not support his positions. Instead, that decision says

that judges have the authority to allocate dependency

exemptions, even though the custodial parent would otherwise be

entitled to claim the deduction under Federal law. See id. at

602-603 & n.4. Nor does Hang say that the dependency allocation

must only be allocated in connection with a child support

determination. See id. Thus, because the father neither

secured modification of the 2013 divorce judgment nor identified

any reason that the tax provision was "invalid" as a matter of

law, the father was required to comply with its clear and

unequivocal command. The first contempt judgment was justified.3

The second and third contempt judgments do not stand on

different footing. It is true that the father raised the

allocation of the tax exemption in a February of 2022

modification complaint, prior to the issuance of those

judgments. But we do not agree with the father that the judge

3 The father argues that the judge erred in sua sponte converting
what was allegedly a scheduled status conference into a hearing
on the mother's first contempt complaint. The father provided
no additional factual support for his argument, nor has he
provided us with a transcript of the hearing. We accordingly
are unable to address this argument. See Cameron v. Carelli, 39
Mass. App. Ct. 81, 84 (1995). See also Chokel v. Genzyme Corp.,
449 Mass. 272, 279 (2007) (appellant's duty to ensure record is
complete); Mass. R. A. P. 8 (b) (1) (A), as appearing in 481
Mass. 1611 (2019).

6
"ignored" this request when she found in the third contempt

judgment that there was no pending modification complaint

"specifically requesting a change relative to th[e] [tax]

provision." The father's request did not seek modification of

the divorce judgment's tax provision, but instead asked the

court to "allocate the right to claim the child as a dependent

. . . as it deems fit and as part of the child support

arrangement" (emphasis added). More important, however, is that

the divorce judgment's allocation of the exemption to the mother

remained unchanged, and the father did not seek to stay

enforcement of the first contempt judgment, which is clear in

requiring the father to file an amended 2020 tax return and to

execute a form allowing the mother to claim the exemption. The

father plainly disobeyed that first judgment, thereby justifying

the second. And without obtaining a stay of the second contempt

judgment, the father again refused to file an amended return or

to execute the relevant form, in clear violation of that

judgment, and again claimed the child as a dependent on his 2021

tax return. This willful noncompliance justified the issuance

of the third contempt judgment.4

4 Because the father did not obtain a stay of the contempt orders
pending appeal, we disagree with his argument that the judge
erred in acting on the mother's second and third contempt
complaints without leave of this court. See Mass. R. Dom. Rel.
P. 62 (g) (in divorce cases, "[u]nless the court otherwise
orders, the filing of an appeal shall not stay the operation

7
It may be that the father eventually secures the

modification he seeks.5 But until he does, the divorce and

contempt judgments remain clear, and the father's mere request

for modification does not excuse his conscious disregard of

unequivocal court orders. Court orders are to be obeyed, not

ignored because a litigant believes they are incorrect. See

Mohamad v. Kavlakian, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 261, 264 (2007) ("a

court order must be obeyed, and until it is reversed by orderly

review, it is to be respected"). That said, however, we are

mindful that the child has been living with the father and that

the father has had legal custody since June of 2021. While we

express no opinion on whether the divorce judgment should

ultimately be modified as the father seeks, we do think that the

change in custody is reason for the Probate and Family Court to

take a renewed look at the allocation of the exemption.6 In the

. . . [o]f any other order or judgment of the court relative to
custody, visitation, alimony, support, or maintenance").
5 It appears that the father's modification complaint was set for

a pretrial conference on May 3, 2023.
6 It appears that absent the divorce judgment, the father would

have a claim to the dependency deduction under § 151 and § 152
of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, and the
attendant Treasury regulations. See generally 26 C.F.R.
§ 1.152-4. As discussed supra, however, Federal law does not
"preclude a State court from allocating an exemption (or
ordering that a custodial parent execute an appropriate form
releasing the exemption)." Hang, 83 Mass. App. Ct. at 602 n.4.

8
meantime, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in

the issuance of the contempt judgments.

Order entered December 15,
2021, denying motion for
relief from judgment
affirmed.

Judgment of contempt, entered
March 16, 2022, affirmed.

Order on complaint for
contempt, entered October
17, 2022, affirmed.

Order entered November 7,
2022, denying motion for
relief from order on
contempt affirmed.

Corrected order entered
November 21, 2022, on
complaint for contempt
affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin,
Englander & Brennan, JJ.7),

Clerk

Entered: May 23, 2023.

7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

9