deCastro v. deCastro,
616 N.E.2d 52 (1993)


Procedure:Plaintiff wife in a divorce proceeding was awarded stock in defendant husband's corporation by the probate judge as part of the division of marital property. Defendant husband appealed the award to the Appeals Court and successfully obtained a stay of the transfer of all company stock. The court granted a request for direct appellate review.


Facts: Edson deCastro (P) made almost all of the financial contributions during his marriage to Jean deCastro (D). D's financial contribution was modest in comparison, but she contributed almost entirely to rearing the children and caring for the home. The judge equally distributed some stock in a company, acquired during the marriage, finding both parties had equally contributed to its acquisition. P appeals.

Issue: In determining the distribution of the marital estate in a partnership type of marriage, did the court correctly apply the equitable distribution statute when the bulk of the property was produced from the financial efforts of the husband, but the bulk of the nonfinancial contribution in raising the children and taking care of the home was from the efforts of the wife?

Holding: Yes. Judgment affirmed.
The Supreme Judicial Court, Abrams, J., held that: (1) probate judge's findings of fact were adequate with regard to parties' contribution to the acquisition, preservation, and appreciation of marital assets; (2) judge was not compelled to consider husband's contributions to the computer industry in distributing marital property; (3) equal division of stock in computer company was not plainly wrong or excessive, despite husband's claim that judge erred because he failed to make finding that husband's “genius” alone engendered the considerable estate; and (4) stay of that portion of judgment which awarded wife 50% of stock was too broad, entitling wife to damages, if any, represented by difference in value of stock that should not have been subject to stay on date of judgment and date of opinion dissolving stay.

Analysis: Defendant husband in a divorce proceeding successfully sought a stay of a probate court order dividing company stock equally between the parties. Plaintiff wife sought direct appellate review. The wife contended on appeal that she had been damaged by the issuance of the stay, and also sought attorney's fees on the basis that the husband's appeal of the property division was frivolous. On appeal, the court held that the probate judge properly considered the factors set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34 in determining the division of marital property. The court held that the appeals court erred in granting a stay of the transfer of all company stock and held that the stay should have been limited to those shares of stock acquired by the husband after the parties' separation. The court held that the wife was entitled to damages resulting from any difference in the value of stock purchased during the marriage or acquired by a stock split between the date of the stay and the date of decision. The court dissolved the stay and remanded the case for a hearing on the amount of damages to which the wife was entitled.