Emery v. Sturtevant (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-059-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 16-P-443 Appeals Court ELIZABETH EMERY vs. THOMAS K. STURTEVANT. No. 16-P-443. Franklin. December 2, 2016. – May 12, 2017. Present: Vuono, Wolohojian, & Shin, JJ. Divorce and Separation, Modification of judgment, Child support, Alimony, Findings. Parent and Child, Child support. Evidence, Earning capacity. Contempt. Complaint for divorce filed in the Franklin Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on November 12, 2010. Following review by this court, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2015), complaints for modification, filed on July 24, 2012, were considered by Stephen M. Rainaud, J., and a complaint for contempt, filed on January 24, 2014, was considered by Beth A. Crawford, J. David H. Lee (Jessica M. Dubin also present) for the husband. Edward F. Dombroski, Jr. (Laura S. Davis also present) for the wife. VUONO, J. This case, which comes before us a second time, arises from the complaints filed by the former husband (husband) for modification of alimony and child support payments and from a series of complaints for contempt filed by the former wife (wife). The question we must answer is whether it is appropriate to attribute income to the husband, for purposes of determining his alimony and child support obligations, where he resigned from a high-paying position as head of school at a private institution and accepted a substantially lower-paying position in the same field following an extensive job search. We conclude that, under such circumstances, the criteria for attribution of income have not been met. We therefore remand this case for a determination of the husband’s support obligations based on his “present income.” Flaherty v. Flaherty, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 291 (1996). Background. A full recitation of the facts is necessary for our discussion.[1] The parties were divorced on June 18, 2012, following twenty years of marriage. During the marriage, the wife was the primary caregiver for the parties’ three children, while the husband worked in the private education sector, making “considerable professional advancements over the years.” On July 1, 2003, the husband began working as associate head of school at Northfield Mount Hermon School (NMH), located in Gill, earning a starting annual salary of $ 128,500. He was promoted to head of school in less than one year, and by all accounts, he was extremely […]