Domestic Relations

Families involved in divorce, child custody, child support, and marital property disputes need both personal and professional support through emotional times that require common-sense and, in cases involving children, an appreciation of the best interests of children caught in the middle of a volatile situation. While intensely personal, domestic relations law is increasingly technical and complex, encompassing aspects of tax, employment, contract, bankruptcy, general litigation, corporate, securities and real estate law. To practice effectively in this area, an attorney needs a depth of experience, innovative and constructive problem-solving skills and a focus on respect for the family. At Lynch, Brewer, Hoffman & Fink, each domestic relations client can expect to work directly with an experienced attorney who will oversee their matter. Elizabeth Zeldin has more than 25 years’ experience in the field and is widely recognized for skill, judgment and breadth of knowledge. However, unlike many other domestic relations law practitioners, Ms. Zeldin practices at an A-V rated general practice firm and can rely on attorneys in other practice areas when a client’s legal matter demands it. Thus clients have the advantage of working with a domestic relations specialist supported by a firm equipped to address the most sophisticated and complex of legal issue in a creative and cost-conscious setting.

Ms. Zeldin handles the family law needs of clients throughout eastern Massachusetts. Applying broad experience and dedication to serving the client's best interests, Lynch, Brewer Hoffman & Fink strives for amicable, non-litigated resolutions. However, we are equally well known for expertise and experience in litigating contentious cases, often requiring substantial and sophisticated discovery and trial, involving complex support, equitable distribution and custody issues. The domestic relations law practice has a reputation for proven ability to successfully resolve the full range of family and matrimonial issues, including:

• Dissolution of marriages and domestic partnerships, either contested or uncontested.
• Analysis and negotiation of property issues, including disputes involving complex financial structures, public and privately held companies, real estate and real estate investment vehicles, venture capital and financial services firms, stock options and deferred compensation packages, trusts, inheritances, limited partnerships and professional practices.
• Child custody and visitation, removal and relocation, legal custody, physical custody and visitation, paternity, interstate and international jurisdictional issues, and out-of-state orders under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Hague Convention.
• Child and spousal support matters often involving clients with high income careers.
• Grandparent and de facto parent visitation and custody matters.
• Domestic relations law appeals, including interlocutory and single justice practice.
• Domestic partnership disputes.
• Post judgment contempt and actions, involving change in circumstances and post-judgment actions involving child custody, visitation, child support and spousal maintenance.

The Lynch, Brewer, Hoffman & Fink domestic relations practice has the experience to address the most complex of issues. Cases presented to Massachusetts Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court by Ms. Zeldin have helped shape significant areas of domestic relations law in the Commonwealth.

Ms. Zeldin has been counsel or co-counsel to litigants in numerous appeals before the Massachusetts Appeals Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court dealing with domestic relations matters and have worked on appellate cases with counsel from other jurisdictions. Many of these cases have been listed by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in their annual list of most significant decisions. These cases include:

•       A.H. v. M.P., 447 Mass. 828 (2006). In this recent case, Ms Zeldin represented a putative de facto parent. She obtained an unusual stay of judgment by the single judgment of the Appeals Court, affirmed by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. The case, taken sua sponte for consideration by the Supreme Judicial Court, refined the rights of de facto parents in Massachusetts and confirmed the need to adopt if one failed to meet the specific criteria of de facto parenthood.
•       Korff v. Korff, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 94 (2005). In this divorce action, Ms. Zeldin litigated the reversal of the trial court judgment, wherein the enforceability of antenuptial agreement was affirmed yet the trial judge modified the terms of an unambiguous antenupial agreement. Upon appeal, Ms. Zeldin represented the husband, who had entered into an antenuptial agreement prior to marrying. The agreement provided, in part, upon divorce, for the husband to pay time limited alimony in an amount that fluctuated with variations in the husband’s income. Yet, instead of enforcing the valid and enforceable agreement, the trial judge ordered the husband to pay a fixed alimony amount based upon an income that was more than twice the husband’s income. The Appeals Court confirmed the ability of parties to govern their post-divorce financial affairs by agreement and that modification of these obligations by a probate court is “legally impermissible” if the agreement is valid and enforceable.
•       Hall v. McCann, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 1108, 791 N.E.2d 393, 2003 WL 21638263 (2003). In this divorce action, Ms. Zeldin represented the wife who prevailed in her appeal of an alimony award and an award of counsel fees. The Appeals Court reversed the probate court finding that the judgment failed to properly take into consideration the tax consequences of an alimony award and failed to provide the proper basis for an award of counsel fees against the wife.
•       Murray-Ray v. Murray, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 1105, 777 N.E.2d 202, 2002 WL 31424329 (2002). In this appeal, the Appeals Court reversed two judgments of the Probate Court, which failed to find the husband in contempt of court or to award the wife counsel fees. As a result, the wife was awarded alimony arrearages, interest on the arrearages and counsel fees.
•       Huddleston v. Huddleston, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 563, 747 N.E.2d 195, ( 2001). After a trial on the modification of a divorce judgment, the wife appealed from a judgment entered by the Probate Court terminating alimony payments paid to the wife by her former husband upon his reaching the age of sixty-five, terminating the husband's obligation to carry life insurance on his life, and eliminating a cost of living adjustment. In light of language in the parties' merged separation agreement reflecting a contrary intent, and the absence of circumstances otherwise warranting the modification, Ms. Zeldin obtained the reversal of the judgment thus entitling the wife to alimony even upon the retirement of the husband.
•       Parrish v. Parrish, 30 Mass.App.Ct. 78, 566 N.E.2d 103 ( 1991). In this case, the wife prevailed in the appeal of a modification judgment. The probate court judge had found that the husband’s income had declined by 60% and therefore reduced the support of the wife (who was the sole support of three sons) by 60%. The judgment left the wife and children in poverty while the husband still enjoyed an upper middle class lifestyle. Counsel obtained a stay of the probate court judgment, pending appeal, thus reinstating the original alimony award pending appeal. Upon appeal, the Appeals Court reversed the decision of the trial judge and remanded the case for a new trial.
•       Bak v. Bak, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 608 (1987). In one of the first appellate cases dealing with the division of inherited assets under Section 34, the Appeals Court affirmed an extremely disparate division of marital assets that left the wife with a negative net worth and the husband with positive net worth, largely as a result of retaining a gifted home. The case has been often cited to support a disparate division of marital assets, when there is evidence that the divorcing parties had kept a certain asset “outside the marital partnership by tacit agreement of the parties.”
•       In re: Custody of a Minor (No. 3), 392 Mass. 728 (1984). In the first case interpreting the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, in a case taken sua sponte by the Supreme Judicial Court on an expedited basis; a judgment of the trial court modifying an Australian custody decree and awarding custody to an Australian citizen living in the United States. Ms. Zeldin, co counsel for the father, obtained enforcement of a custody judgment of a court of Australia, showing that the custody decree in Australia was rendered in accordance with its own procedures and followed legal principles not repugnant to those of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Ms. Zeldin is admitted to practice in Massachusetts and South Carolina. She has been recognized by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as one of the ten Lawyers of the Year in 2002. She has been named one of the “Top Fifty Female Super Lawyers” in 2004 and as a Super Lawyer in 2004, 2005 and 2006.