781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

Three Important Factors Converge With Unusual Clarity in the Appeals Court’s Heystek v. Duncan

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Sometimes, a Massachusetts Appeals Court Rule 1:28 Memorandum and Order (a/k/a “unpublished opinion”) addresses an issue or cluster of issues that make it noteworthy, despite its paucity of detail and lack of formal precedential value. The Appeals Court’s Heystek v. Duncan is one of those cases, tackling 3 significant issues in understated but significant ways:

  1. The factor future opportunities in property division;
  2. Illiquidity as a factor of equitable distribution; and
  3. Intent in automatic restraining order violations.

Future Opportunities

A phrase search for M.G.L., ch. 208, §34’s “opportunities… for future acquisition of income and assets” in a data base will turn up many Massachusetts cases. But, they predominantly concern exclusion of trust interests as divisible marital assets, relegating them as “mere expectancies” that the court may nonetheless consider as a future economic opportunity.

Rare, however, is the appellate discussion of how strongly the trial court should weigh it, a topic approached part way, at least, by Heystek v. Duncan, a case in which the Appeals Court emphasized that with an established course of gifting from the husband’s mother, while not an enforceable right:

    …the foundational reality of the of the parties’ financial circumstances throughout their marriage was that their life-style relied to a significant degree on a fairly steady stream of such largess, and it would ignore that reality to anticipate that the husband would not continue to benefit from similar generosity following dissolution of the marriage. 

While in litigation, and in divorce mediation, we see the issue surface regularly, the focus and clarity of the statement is significant for its strength. The lack of factual detail limits the direct impact of the case on future deliberations, but one may certainly expect to see this kind of persuasive characterization in other cases.

Illiquidity

As a practical matter, the relative liquidity of asset distributions is a part of most divorce negotiations when there are diverse assets to divide. Most frequently, it arises in three contexts: closely held businesses, wherein disposable cash is scarce from which to fund a payout to the non-owner; cases in which a primary residence is the predominant asset; and where retirement funds present qualification, penalty and age/timing challenges. But, we recall few cases that broadly present illiquidity as an indicator of comparative “economically straitened circumstances". This window into the appellate panel’s thinking reflects a sophisticated view of family economics that is refreshing.

Rule 411

Supplemental Probate Court Rule 411, the so-called automatic restraining order, has precious little case law development. In Heytek v. Duncan, the wife removed $40,000 from the marital estate without the benefit of an authorizing order,or agreement. Nor could she excuse the withdrawal as a permitted usage (legal fees, business expense or investment cost), under the rule’s parameters. The husband sought enforcement by civil contempt and, in defense, wife argued that she did not intend to violate the order.

Finding no requirement of intent in a civil enforcement action, the Appeals Court upheld the trial judge’s contempt adjudication. With the order deemed unequivocal and the violation undoubted, the judge and the Appeals Court deemed wife's state of mind immaterial. While this unpublished opinion is not precedent, it surely is a warning shot to those who pay too little heed to the automatic restraining order, including counsel.



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



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

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