He currently has 44 cases listed on the Massachusetts Appeals Court website. He has also represented seven appeals to the District Court Appellate Division. Attorney Serduck specializes in domestic relations in Franklin County and Hampshire County in Western Massachusetts, such as divorce, custody, child support, visitation (or parenting time), paternity, modification and contempts.
Services
What about an appeal?
Here is the answer: an appellate court - in Massachusetts this would be most like the Massachusetts Appeals Court or in rare cases the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court -- does not hear witnesses.
The case is presented to the appellate court on "the record" made below.
In a case tied by a Judge (as are all domestic relations cases in Massachusetts) the standard of review for determinations of creditability is "clearly erroneous" under Rule 52, Mass R. Civ.
P., or Mass.
R. Dom.
Here is the answer: an appellate court - in Massachusetts this would be most like the Massachusetts Appeals Court or in rare cases the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court -- does not hear witnesses.
The case is presented to the appellate court on "the record" made below.
In a case tied by a Judge (as are all domestic relations cases in Massachusetts) the standard of review for determinations of creditability is "clearly erroneous" under Rule 52, Mass R. Civ.
P., or Mass.
R. Dom.
A disabled woman was entitled to alimony payments from her ex-husband even after the durational limits established by the 2011 Alimony Reform Act had been reached, a Probate & Family Court judge has ruled.
The defendant ex-wife, about to turn 60 and unable to work as a result of a head injury she suffered in a car accident, argued that such a deviation from the durational limits laid out in G.L.c.
208, §49(b) of the act was warranted in the interests of justice.
Michael J. Serduck of Amherst, who represented the defendant, said though the case has limited precedential value as a trial court decision, other lawyers can cite it as guidance when seeking to have alimony extended beyond the retirement age of the payor spouse.
The defendant ex-wife, about to turn 60 and unable to work as a result of a head injury she suffered in a car accident, argued that such a deviation from the durational limits laid out in G.L.c.
208, §49(b) of the act was warranted in the interests of justice.
Michael J. Serduck of Amherst, who represented the defendant, said though the case has limited precedential value as a trial court decision, other lawyers can cite it as guidance when seeking to have alimony extended beyond the retirement age of the payor spouse.
Reviews
Be the first to review Serduck Michael J Atty.
Write a Review
