Legal Opinion

Eccleston v. Bankosky

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 13, 2003PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C.J.

We consider in this case the novel question whether G. L. c. 208, § 28,1 authorizes a Probate and Family *429Court judge to order a divorced father to pay postminority support (support payable after a child’s eighteenth birthday) to a third party appointed as his child’s guardian and with whom his child is domiciled. It does not. A Probate and Family Court judge, however, does have authority pursuant to equity powers vested by the Legislature under G. L. c. 215, § 6, to determine whether the father should be required to support his daughter financially beyond her eighteenth birthday.2 We vacate…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Leibovich v. AntonellisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  2. E.N.O. v. L.M.M.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
  3. Youmans v. RamosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
  4. Hershkoff v. Bd. of Registrars of Voters of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  5. Risk Management Foundation of Harvard Medical Institutions, Inc. v. Commissioner of InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Recinos v. EscobarMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016
  2. Care & Protection of SharleneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  3. Tatar v. SchukerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
  4. Purdy v. ColangeloMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
  5. Saia v. SaiaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API