Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl
37 N.E.3d 15
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Married 2000; two special-needs children; wife primary caregiver; wife low current income; husband from wealthy family controlling for‑profit college businesses.
- Husband received substantial tax‑free distributions from a family irrevocable spendthrift trust (the 2004 Trust) from 2008–Aug 2010 (including monthly payments up to $65,000); distributions to him ceased one month before he filed for divorce while siblings continued to receive payments.
- Probate judge valued the Trust at ~$24.92M and the husband’s one‑eleventh beneficial interest at $2.265M; court included $1.133M of Trust value in wife’s share and ordered husband to pay $48,699.77 monthly for 24 months to effectuate the division.
- Husband argued the Trust (and its distributions) were insulated by a spendthrift clause and/or too discretionary/remote to be included in the marital estate; wife argued the Trust distributions were ascertainable and integral to the marital lifestyle.
- Appellate court affirmed inclusion and 60/40 division in wife’s favor, affirmed attorney’s‑fee award to wife, vacated contempt finding against husband, and dismissed stay appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether husband’s beneficial interest in 2004 Trust is part of marital estate under G. L. c. 208, § 34 | Spendthrift clause and trustee discretion insulated trust from inclusion; interest too remote/speculative | Trust contained an ascertainable standard, had a history of substantial distributions to husband, and funded marital lifestyle, so it is includable | Included: court held trust interest was vested/ascertainable and properly included in marital estate |
| Valuation and division of husband’s Trust interest | Interest too difficult to value; fractional one‑eleventh method speculative and administratively burdensome | Trial valuation justified by trust holdings and distributions; judge has broad discretion to value and divide | Valuation and 60/40 division affirmed as within judge’s discretion |
| Whether prior distributions were a subterfuge and spendthrift clause controls | Suspension of payments shows trustee discretion; spendthrift clause should exclude Trust from division | Cessation on eve of divorce evidenced manipulation; spendthrift clause does not prohibit inclusion where interest is effectively part of marital support | Court found the spendthrift clause invoked as subterfuge; inclusion warranted despite clause |
| Contempt for failure to make ordered monthly payments | Husband lacked independent means; relied on loans and anticipated trust distributions; requested trustee distributions but was denied | Wife sought enforcement of the clear monetary order | Contempt vacated: court held no clear and convincing proof of willful disobedience given attempted but unsuccessful efforts to obtain funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Krokyn v. Krokyn, 378 Mass. 206 (1979) (spendthrift trust interest may be considered in determining ability to pay for support)
- Lauricella v. Lauricella, 409 Mass. 211 (1991) (beneficial interests, including those under spendthrift trusts, can be part of marital estate when present enforceable rights exist)
- D.L. v. G.L., 61 Mass. App. Ct. 488 (2004) (distinguishes wholly discretionary trusts that are not includable; remoteness/discretion may preclude inclusion)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 364 (1985) (remainder interests under spendthrift trusts can be considered in § 34 division)
- Comins v. Comins, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 28 (1992) (trust with ascertainable standard and prior distributions included in marital estate)
- Williams v. Massa, 431 Mass. 619 (2000) (future acquisitions that are fairly certain and presently valu able may be considered in § 34 division)