Posts tagged "Ludwig"

Ludwig v. Lamee-Ludwig (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-009-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   15-P-1177                                       Appeals Court   WEST LUDWIG  vs.  CHERYL LAMEE-LUDWIG.[1]     No. 15-P-1177.   Norfolk.     October 17, 2016. – February 7, 2017.   Present:  Wolohojian, Carhart, & Shin, JJ.     Divorce and Separation, Alimony.       Complaint for divorce filed in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on June 20, 2012.   The case was heard by John D. Casey, J.     Elaine M. Epstein for the husband. Paul M. Kane (Joan E. Kolligian also present) for the wife.     SHIN, J.  We address in this case whether the calculation of an employee spouse’s alimony obligation may include income received from unvested employee stock options[2] that were not subject to equitable division after application of the “time rule” set out in Baccanti v. Morton, 434 Mass. 787 (2001).  The trial judge concluded that it would not constitute double counting if such income were included in determining the husband’s alimony obligation to the wife, and the husband appeals.  He also appeals the judge’s determination of the date on which the unvested options should be valued under the time rule.  Discerning no error in the judge’s resolution of either question, we affirm. Background.  After twenty years of marriage, the parties separated and began living apart in April of 2012.  The husband filed a complaint for divorce later that year.  When attempts at reconciliation failed, the wife filed a counterclaim for divorce in July of 2013. On August 19, 2014, the parties entered into a separation agreement, which resolved all issues in the case except the two identified above.  The same day, the trial judge entered a judgment of divorce nisi approving and incorporating the separation agreement.[3]  As to the two contested issues, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to submit them to the judge for determination solely “on representation of counsel.” The judge held a nonevidentiary hearing on the contested issues later that day.  He then entered a supplemental judgment of divorce nisi dated October 1, 2014, concluding that the alimony provisions of the separation agreement should be applied to income the husband realizes from unvested stock options that were not subject to the equitable division of marital assets,[4] and that the unvested options should be valued on a date closest in time to entry of the original divorce judgment.  This appeal followed. Discussion.  1. […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 7, 2017 at 4:19 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,