781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

O Pfannenstiehl! Part 4: No Wonder We’re All Confused (Equities Trump Law?)

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

In his recent blog entry about the Massachusetts Appeals Court case, Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl, at http://www.margolis.com/our-blog/does-recent-divorce-undermine-centuries-of-spendthrift-trust-law, Boston estate-planning counsel Harry S. Margolis, wrote that:

    This ruling, which undermines centuries of established trust law, was based in part on the equities of the situation and in part on a misunderstanding of wording commonly used in trusts.

Who are we to argue with Mr. Margolis’ observations about trust law? They sound about right to us. Today, instead, we are focused on the equities, and ask did they trump the law of trusts in the courts?

The facts that the Appeals Court highlighted shone harshly and disparagingly on the husband and his family. The decision recited the relaxed and informal manner in which biased trustees (sibling and family accountant) administered the trust, and their divorce-eve cut off of family benefits, in great detail and with considerable care. The court trashes the trust as a sham, and the husband’s advocacy, as disingenuous at best. The husband’s overpaid, no show, family business job (as in four years of paid leave) is reported, even if marginally relevant. The court also details the wife’s considerable burdens, including her care responsibilities for a Downs child, and the husband and family’s pressure for her to exit military service, just shy of her pension vesting.

The trial court’s action was extraordinary in many ways. After determining that the trust is a devisable marital asset (we don’t find that part surprising), the court completely disregards any of the ways that this generational trust restricts beneficiary access to trust resources. It simply divides the corpus by 1/11, despite those restrictions, and the fact that the beneficiary class is subject to expansion. The court ordered a 24-month cash buy out of the wife’s adjudged interest, irrespective of liquidity, taxation and access issues.

But, beyond that, the court then divided the husband’s family trust interest disproportionately against him, in tandem with an unequal split of the non-trust estate, in the same proportions.

It is not unusual in a case of trust-divorce case, for the court to split the non-trust estate in favor of the non-beneficiary spouse. This is usually a form of compensation for a disproportionate split of the trust asset in the beneficiary’s favor. But, here, the judge favored the wife with 60% of the whole estate, trust included. It is entirely fair to argue, that by valuing the trust as if it were cash in the bank, rather than a discretionary vehicle of future distributions, that the net asset split to the wife is substantially greater than the surface 60%.

How does this square with Moriarty v. Stone, still good law that establishes that “contribution” remains “touchstone” of asset division? Neither party created the trust wealth, so the only contributory link is the husband’s lineage. Do the wife’s overall contributions echo Williams v. Massa, the famous case of the multi-hatted (economic and non-economic) contributor, who kept his trust interest? Not really.

In the end, it does look like the trial court punished the spouse whom she took to be the bad actor, and advanced the interests of the needier, and perhaps more virtuous spouse, notwithstanding the law of trusts. The Appeals Court decision, and its machinations to get a majority, does nothing to dispel that view.

In our next blog, we will turn to how the Supreme Judicial Court may look at the situation, should it accept the case.



Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

rehabilitative alimony family mediation family support lawyer alimony reform legislation divorce and family law mediators mediator Alimony Reform Act Major League Baseball Arbitration Child Support Guidelines litigation divorce mediators Chouteau Levine arbitration Divorce divorce arbitration arbitrators private dispute resolution Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth mediation Same Sex Marriage SJC Massachusetts alimony and child support Levine Dispute Resolution Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC Obamacare conciliation family law annulment high-risk methodology Levine Dispute Resolutions The Seven Sins of Alimony Massachusetts Uniform Arbitration Act separation family and probate law disputes self-adjusting alimony family law arbitrator how baseball arbitration works Baseball Players Cohabitation disputes Levine Dispute Resolution Center Defense of Marriage Act divorce process divorce mediation family law mediation med-arb divorce mediator alimony DOMA COLA Massachusetts divorce lawyers health insurance Massachusetts lawyers alimony law LDRC pre-ARA alimony IRC §2704 divorce judgment special master support orders Boston divorced family law arbitrators General term alimony mediators lawyers divorce litigation Divorce Agreements alimony statute health coverage divorce lawyers divorce mediations resolve disputes Baseball Family Law Arbitration divorce arbitrators lawyer-attended mediation arbitrator mediations dispute resolution Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act traditional negotiations alimony orders child support fraud medical benefits Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly divorce agreement Massachusetts alimony med/arb divorce arbitrator divorce and family law Matrimonial Arbitration Baseball Arbitration facilitated negotiations MLB labor agreement Massachusetts divorce mediators Self-adjusting alimony orders