Marshall v. Marshall
111 N.E.3d 1113
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Married in 1996; entered a Pennsylvania-governed antenuptial agreement defining "separate" and "marital" property and setting date for property rights as date of physical separation (Nov. 1, 2008).
- Wife filed for divorce in 2013; temporary orders required husband to pay child support, base alimony, and a bonus-based supplemental payment.
- After a four-day trial, the Probate and Family Court issued a judgment dividing assets and awarding alimony; the wife successfully moved to amend, changing several asset allocations and increasing base alimony.
- Husband appealed, challenging (1) the increased base alimony, (2) a contingent alimony award tied to bonuses, and (3) several post-separation modifications to property division.
- Trial judge found the antenuptial agreement valid, treated certain post-2008 acquisitions as separate property (subject to limited exceptions), and found the parties enjoyed an upper-middle-class lifestyle with the husband able to pay increased support.
- Appellate outcome: affirmed most property rulings; vacated both the base and contingent alimony awards and remanded alimony for reconsideration in light of controlling SJC precedent, while requiring temporary alimony at the increased level during remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of amended base alimony increase | Increase to $1,680/week is excessive and abuse of discretion | Increase justified by wife’s needs and marital standard of living; husband can pay | Base alimony vacated and remanded for reconsideration, but appellate court found $1,680 not necessarily excessive and ordered temporary payment at that amount during remand |
| Contingent alimony tied to bonuses | Bonus-based contingent award improper | Contingent award appropriate given bonuses received historically | Contingent bonus award vacated; remand required because judge did not identify "special circumstances" required under precedent |
| Allocation of marital home (33 Ashton Ave) | Transfer to wife invalid because deed unrecorded and asset was marital under agreement | Deed (signed by both) modified agreement; funds and mother’s gifts supported conversion to wife’s separate property | Affirmed: deed treated as valid modification waiving tenancy-by-entirety; full equity to wife upheld |
| Treatment of appreciation in RRSP/TD Ameritrade accounts | Appreciation of husband’s separate accounts should remain separate under agreement | Appreciation not covered by Sections 3–4 exception and thus is marital; split equally | Affirmed: appreciation treated as marital property because those accounts were not among the specific assets listed in Sections 3–4 |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Young, 478 Mass. 1 (2017) (contingent or variable alimony awards are exceptional and require special circumstances)
- Zaleski v. Zaleski, 469 Mass. 230 (2014) (statutory guidance on alimony percentages)
- Pierce v. Pierce, 455 Mass. 286 (2009) (recipient's need measured by pre-dissolution marital lifestyle)
- M.C. v. T.K., 463 Mass. 226 (2012) (standard of living linked to household spending)
- Colorio v. Marx, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 382 (2008) (contract interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Kobico, Inc. v. Pipe, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 103 (1997) (specific contract terms control over general language)
- Merrimack College v. KPMG LLP, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 803 (2016) (contract construed in light of language, background, and purpose)
- Sullivan v. Southland Life Ins. Co., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 439 (2006) (contract interpretation principles)
- Goldman v. Goldman, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 603 (1990) (lifestyle maintenance principle in long-term marriages)
- L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169 (2014) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Picciotto v. Continental Cas. Co., 512 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion framing)