MICHELLE A. THIBODEAU vs. JOSEPH E. THIBODEAU, THIRD.
The former wife (wife) appeals from an amended judgment of divorce entered in the Probate and Family Court. The wife argues that the judge, in dividing the marital estate, erred in ordering that the former husband (husband) elect to receive his public pension benefits under an option that does not provide for survivor benefits, and relatedly in ordering the husband to maintain life insurance on the wife‘s behalf only if it is available to him at little to no cost. The wife also challenges the portion of the amended judgment pertaining to health insurance and argues that the judge should have included the husband‘s accrued paid time off and sick and vacation time in either the alimony calculation or the property division. As we
1. Standard of review.
A judge has broad discretion in making an equitable division of marital property and in determining the form and amount of alimony. See Williams v. Massa, 431 Mass. 619, 631, 634 (2000). We will not disturb a judge‘s decision as to division of property “[a]s long as the judge‘s findings show that all relevant factors in [
2. Public pension benefits.
Paragraph 15 of the amended judgment provides that “Husband shall elect to receive his retirement benefits under Option A of the Retirement plan and he shall designate and name Wife as the pre-retirement survivor
In ordering that the husband elect to receive his benefits under Option A, the judge reasoned as follows:
“The parties did not provide a third party/expert valuation of Husband‘s pension and retirement benefits including the value of any survivor benefits were Husband to choose Option C. As a result, the amount of life insurance Husband would need to obtain and maintain to . . . secure Wife‘s survivor benefits if Option C was chosen is unknown and any amount of life insurance for this purpose would be arbitrary and therefore unfair and inequitable. Neither
party‘s trial financial statement lists any current deductions or payments for life insurance nor do either list having a life insurance policy with a cash surrender value. It is unknown if Husband has [a] life insurance policy paid by his employer and, if he does, the amount of death benefits for such policy. The cost of any such life insurance policy Husband would need to obtain to secure Wife‘s survivor benefits under Option C was not established and it is more likely than not that Husband would incur an increased premium for such life insurance given his current age and possibly due to his occupation.”
While we accept the judge‘s finding that the evidence did not establish the cost of the husband‘s maintaining life insurance, we are unable to discern why that led the judge to conclude that an equitable division of the marital estate demanded the election of Option A. Specifically, we cannot ascertain from the judge‘s rationale why she concluded that the unknown cost of life insurance is an issue under Option C -- which, as mentioned, will provide the wife survivor benefits if she is named as the surviving beneficiary -- but not under Option A, which will provide payments only during the husband‘s lifetime. See
We recognize that the judge has considerable discretion in determining an equitable division and that she ordered an overall disproportionate division of assets in the wife‘s favor. We are unable to conclude, however, that her reasons for
3. Health insurance.
Paragraph 3 of the amended judgment requires the husband to “maintain health insurance coverage for Wife so long as it is available to him through his employer at a reasonable cost.” The wife argues that the judge erred by not defining “reasonable cost.” We are unpersuaded. The judge‘s order is consistent with
The wife also argues that paragraph 3 is ambiguous as to whether the husband‘s obligation to maintain health insurance coverage for the wife will terminate after his retirement. Consistent with
4. Accrued time.
Finally, the wife argues that the judge erred by not considering the husband‘s accrued paid time off and sick and vacation time as part of the alimony calculation or alternatively by not considering the accrued time as an asset subject to division. The wife did not offer adequate evidence on these issues, however. She points to trial exhibits 50 and 51, which are spreadsheets appearing to show certain categories of the husband‘s accrued time for parts of 2021 and 2022. But
5. Conclusion.
Paragraph 15 of the amended judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order. On remand, paragraph 3 of the amended judgment shall be modified to reflect that the husband‘s obligation to maintain health insurance coverage for the wife shall continue after he retires so long as it is available to him through his current employer at a reasonable cost. The remainder of the amended judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Entered: July 21, 2026.