Hoegen v. Hoegen
89 Mass. App. Ct. 6
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced; separation agreement (surviving except as to children) set father’s biweekly child support above guideline amount and contained a clause waiving mother’s rights to father’s stock plan/RSUs.
- Father later filed to modify parenting schedule, extend frequency of support review, and claim tax exemptions; mother counterclaimed to recalculate child support to include all of father’s income.
- At modification trial, judge increased child support to $608/week based on base pay and bonuses but excluded income from vested restricted stock units (RSUs), finding the mother had waived any interest in the stock plan.
- Mother appealed, arguing RSU income must be included under the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and that the waiver cannot bar children’s rights to support; she also sought retroactive modification and attorney’s fees.
- Appeals Court held the judge abused his discretion by excluding RSU income and failing to make written findings; remanded for recalculation including RSUs, made the new order retroactive to the filing date of the modification complaint, and directed reconsideration of attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vested RSU income should be included in father's gross income for child support | Hoegen (mother): RSU income is "income from any source" under the Guidelines and must be included | Hoegen (father): Mother waived interest in the stock plan in the separation agreement; including RSUs would be double dipping | Court: RSU income is includable as gross employment income; exclusion was error; remand to recalculate including RSUs |
| Whether mother's waiver of interest in stock plan bars use of RSU income for child support | Mother: Waiver cannot waive children’s statutory right to support; waiver invalid as father concealed nature of options | Father: Waiver of stock plan rights in separation agreement prevents counting RSU income | Court: Parental agreements cannot waive children’s rights to support; waiver does not prevent inclusion of RSU income |
| Whether modification should be made retroactive to the complaint filing date | Mother: Retroactivity appropriate where circumstances materially changed and in best interests of children | Father: No retroactivity because he paid more than guideline amount (but excluding RSUs) | Court: Judge failed to make required findings on retroactivity; remanded and ordered new modification to be retroactive to Feb 5, 2013 |
| Whether mother is entitled to attorney's fees | Mother: Fees appropriate; judge gave no explanation for denial | Father: Opposes fees | Court: Judge abused discretion by denying without explanation; remand to determine whether and what fees should be awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooters v. Wooters, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 839 (2009) (stock-option/RSU income treated as gross employment income for child support)
- Croak v. Bergeron, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 750 (2006) (guidelines presumptively apply to post-judgment modifications)
- Morales v. Morales, 464 Mass. 507 (2013) (modification required where existing order differs from guideline result)
- Champion v. Champion, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 215 (2002) (rejects notion that including income from assets already divided is improper double benefit)
- Wasson v. Wasson, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 574 (2012) (judges must make specific written findings when excluding sources of income)
- Okoli v. Okoli, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 371 (2012) (parents cannot bargain away children's statutory right to support)
- Knox v. Remick, 371 Mass. 433 (1976) (axiom that parental agreements cannot waive children's right to support)
- Whelan v. Whelan, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 616 (2009) (standards for retroactive modification of child support)
- Boulter-Hedley v. Boulter, 429 Mass. 808 (1999) (retroactivity should be considered unless contrary to child's best interest)