- Child Support
- Modification of prior judgments
- Contempt to enforce judgments
- Guardianship of Minors and incapacitated adults
- Conservatorship of Minors and incapacitated adults
- Administer decedents’ estates
- Power of Attorney
- Health Care Proxy
- Trusts including special needs trusts
While Attorney Garrity primarily focuses on trying cases in the Probate and Family Court, on rare occasions she has appealed a matter.
Smith v. Smith (2018) http://masscases.com/cases/app/93/93massappct361.html
Attorney Garrity represented the Husband in a post-divorce contempt allegation where it was alleged he did not pay the former wife the proper amount of alimony. The appeals court found that the Probate and Family Court judge did not abuse her discretion in finding the husband not in contempt of a divorce agreement and a judgment of divorce obligating him to pay a certain amount of alimony, where it could not be said that the husband had acted in clear and undoubted disobedience of the clear and unequivocal command, given that, pursuant to postdivorce agreements between the husband and wife that were reached without court approval, the wife had agreed in advance to reductions in alimony and the husband had made certain payments and had changed his behavior to his detriment in reliance thereon.
Clark v. Clark http://masscases.com/cases/app/47/47massappct737.html
Attorney Garrity represented a son, who was pulled in as an intervenor, in a dispute between his other siblings. The appeals court found that the Probate and Family Court judge did not err in dismissing a petition for removal of guardians, where the judge’s findings and conclusions were supported by the evidence and were not clearly wrong, and no other reason appeared on the record to warrant vacating the dismissal.
Care and Protection of Orazio https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-court-of-appeals/1240777.html
Attorney Garrity represented the mother in appealing a custody order from the Juvenile Court. The trial court violated a mother’s due process rights when the judge, by unexpectedly reopening a trial during a scheduled seventy-two-hour temporary custody hearing following a new emergency petition. Under these circumstances, the mother and children were deprived not only of actual notice, but also of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the litigation.