Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-24-2024
Case Style:
Michael A. Trethewey v. Rosalia F. Trethewey
Case Number: 23-P-55
Judge: Not Available
Court: Middlesex County Division of the Probate and Family Court
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Cambridge, Massachusetts divorce lawyers represented the parties in a marriage dissolution case involving division of marital assets.
The husband in this divorce case challenges a judgment of divorce nisi issued by a judge of the Probate and Family Court, principally on the ground that it reflects impermissible "double dipping," or double counting, of one of the spouse's assets -- treating the entire asset both as the husband's income for alimony purposes, and as a divisible asset of the marital estate. The husband contends that this double counting produced significant inequity and that the divorce judgment accordingly must be vacated.
At the time the husband filed for divorce in 2015, he had worked as a financial advisor for roughly twenty years. During trial, in mid-2018, the husband changed jobs and began working for Wells Fargo Advisors (Wells Fargo). When the husband began working for Wells Fargo, he received a $5 million "Transitional Bonus" as part of his compensation package. The actual structure of the $5 million was not a bonus, however; rather, it reflected the advance payment of a portion of the husband's anticipated income from Wells Fargo, which he could earn in the amount of $51,550.04 per month over the ensuing nine-plus years (112 months). The husband simultaneously executed a $5 million promissory note with Wells Fargo -- a debt that would be incrementally forgiven at the same rate of $51,550.04 per month, as long as the husband met certain business benchmarks.
The alleged double dipping arises from the judge's treatment of the $5 million Transitional Bonus. On the one hand, in calculating the husband's income for purposes of alimony, the judge counted the approximately $51,000 per month of loan forgiveness (over $600,000 annually) as income, as if the husband were receiving a payment of that money on a monthly basis. On the other hand, in determining the value of the parties' marital assets, the judge also counted what remained of the $5 million advance payment (approximately $3.2 million as of the close of trial in July 2019), and divided that $3.2 million account with the parties' other assets, awarding approximately fifty-three percent of the total assets to the wife. Also relevant, the judge in essence separated this asset from its associated liability under the promissory note and assigned the entire liability under the note (well over $4 million as of the close of trial) to the husband.
On the record before us, it was error for the judge to treat the $5 million advance in this fashion -- double dipping or arguably even triple dipping -- thereby disadvantaging the husband with respect to the Transitional Bonus threefold. Because the resulting award was neither consistent with the judge's stated rationale -- which did not address the double dip -- nor equitable, we amend the divorce judgment to eliminate the double dipping problem.[1]...
Trethewey v. Trethewey, 23-P-55 (Mass. App. Apr 24, 2024)
Outcome: Dismissed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: