Young v. Young

478 Mass. 1 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Derek (H) and Joy (W) had been married for nearly twenty-four years when H filed a complaint for divorce. W filed a complaint for divorce one week later, and the two actions were effectively treated as one. The judge ordered H to pay temporary alimony in the amount of $48,950 per month. H works as a “high-level executive” with a financial institution who receives substantial compensation in various forms. Apart from his annual base salary (which was $350,000 in 2014) and an annual bonus (which was $1.6 million in 2013), he receives compensation through at least seven different compensation programs or share plans, including several types of stock options, a special bonus program, investor entity units, and opportunities to purchase shares of common stock at a discount. H's gross income from 2008 through 2012 was approximately $1.53 million in 2008, $2.07 million in 2009, $3.81 million in 2010, $7.96 million in 2011, and $7.76 million in 2012. In their marriage, H would work and W would “be a stay-at-home parent and not be employed outside the home.” W has not worked outside the home since 1992, and the judge found that she “has no ability to be employed at a level to allow her to maintain a lifestyle post-divorce similar to that maintained during the marriage without alimony.” Before the separation, the parties were living in a lavish, eight-bedroom home, driving luxury vehicles, and regularly dining out three to four times a week at expensive restaurants. They had purchased a summer home in Nantucket, were spending “tens of thousands of dollars on articles of clothing and handbags” from designer stores, and regularly enjoyed expensive vacations. W's weekly expenses totaled $8,728 (or $453,856 per year) after subtracting expenses related to the children's college tuition and room and board. According to W's September 10, 2014, financial statement, her weekly expenses had increased to $12,575.77 (or $653,940 per year). The judge found that certain expenses were “overstated,” and her “representations of expenses on her financial statements [were] not an accurate reflection of her needs.” The judge did not make a finding regarding her actual weekly or annual expenses or needs.

W sought alimony in the amount of $713,781.49 per year. The judge ordered H to pay the wife each year alimony in the amount of thirty-three percent of his annual gross income. H appealed