Adams v. Adams, 459 Mass. 361

Nicholas C. Adams and Nancy W. Adams married in 1997 and led an affluent, high-access lifestyle tied to Wellington Management; Nicholas was a Wellington partner with substantial compensation and profit distributions.
Nancy served as primary homemaker and financial manager, overseeing the children, property, trusts, and family finances, while Nicholas contributed primarily through his partnership income.
The couple has four children and separated in early 2006, after which ongoing divorce litigation proceeded, including custody, support, and division of assets.
A special master valued Nicholas's Wellington partnership interest; the trial court included its present value in the marital estate for equitable distribution, adopting a direct capitalization approach.
The divorce judgment ordered equal division of marital assets, with premarital assets excluded from division and post-separation conduct considered under § 34.
The husband appealed, challenging the inclusion and valuing of the Wellington partnership, and the case was remanded for recalculation of present value consistent with the court's opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wellington is a divisible marital asset	Adams contends the partnership is an expectancy and not subject to division	Adams argues partnership is a profit-sharing asset includable under §34	Partnership may be included in marital estate; not an unassignable expectancy
Appropriate valuation method for the partnership	Use of direct capitalization overstates value given finite cash flows	Discounted cash flow was acceptable to value the stream of profits	Direct capitalization error; use of discounting finite cash flow required; remand for recalculation
Postseparation contributions and their effect on division	Pre-separation contributions and postseparation conduct should reduce the other party's share	Homemaking and other nonmonetary contributions justify equal division; postseparation conduct not controlling	Court properly weighed § 34 factors; equal division sustained absent error
Tax treatment of the partnership interest transfers	Tax affecting and rates should reflect appropriate federal/state treatment	Tax rates applied should align with how partnership distributions are taxed	Remand to provide clearer, consistent tax affecting for both components of distributions
Impact of impoundment order on appellate proceedings	Impounded records should remain sealed	Unsealing necessary to resolve case on appeal	Opinion vacates impoundment for public discussion of key points while preserving other records

Drapek v. Drapek, 399 Mass. 240 (Mass. 1987) (present value of future earned income not subject to §34 division)
Bernier v. Bernier, 449 Mass. 774 (Mass. 2007) (valuation of close corporations; tax affecting and present value methodology)
Baccanti v. Morton, 434 Mass. 787 (Mass. 2001) (present value of stock options and nonvested interests may be included)
Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. 398 (Mass. 1977) (discretion to assign assets acquired before marriage; equal division considerations)
Hanify v. Hanify, 403 Mass. 184 (Mass. 1988) (consideration of homemaking and contributions in § 34)
Dewan v. Dewan, 399 Mass. 754 (Mass. 1987) (if-and-when received distributions; present value considerations)
Lauricella v. Lauricella, 409 Mass. 211 (Mass. 1991) (rights in real estate trusts and benefit interests as divisible assets)
Sampson v. Sampson, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 366 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (present value of business interests included in marital estate)