Hoort v. Hoort (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-055-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 12‑P‑1853 Appeals Court NANCY E. HOORT vs. STEVEN T. HOORT. No. 12‑P‑1853. Plymouth. March 12, 2014. ‑ May 28, 2014. Present: Vuono, Grainger, & Agnes, JJ. Contempt. Practice, Civil, Contempt. Divorce and Separation. Taxation, Income tax. Complaint for divorce filed in the Plymouth Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on October 1, 2007. A complaint for contempt was heard by Catherine P. Sabaitis, J. Brian J. Kelly for Steven T. Hoort. Elaine M. Epstein for Nancy E. Hoort. GRAINGER, J. Steven Hoort (husband), the former husband of Nancy Hoort (wife), appeals from a judgment of contempt entered by a judge of the Probate and Family Court. At issue on appeal is the interpretation of language contained in a temporary order that was in effect for a two-year period during the parties’ divorce proceedings requiring the husband to pay the wife “a sum equal to one-third of his year end distribution after taxes.” Background. The parties were married for thirty-one years, although they lived separately during the last two of those years. The husband is a partner in a large law firm; the wife does not work outside the home. In 2007, the wife filed a complaint for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. On October 20, 2008, the court entered the temporary order here in dispute. We review the husband’s compensation structure as it is relevant to the parties’ arguments on appeal. The husband’s approximate annual compensation in 2008 was $ 970,000. The husband’s annual compensation includes the following types of draws or distributions: (1) a $ 10,000 monthly draw; (2) three “tax draws” in the amount of approximately $ 110,000 paid in April, June, and September; and (3) a year-end distribution that is received in January of the following year. The husband’s year-end distributions for 2008 and 2009 — the two years pertinent to the dispute — were $ 245,023 and $ 249,934 respectively. The first complaint for contempt. In January, 2009, the husband received his 2008 year-end distribution. In July, 2009, the wife filed a complaint for contempt asserting that the husband had failed to pay one-third of his 2008 year-end distribution as directed by the court’s temporary order. The contempt action was consolidated with the divorce trial. Following a consolidated trial, […]