Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementprobatedivorcealimony
settlementappealmotionprobatealimony

Related Cases

Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct. 474, 95 L.Ed. 552
View Case »
Steele v. Gray, 64 Wis.2d 422, 219 N.W.2d 312
View Case »
Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761
View Case »
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Linear Films, Inc., 718 F.Supp. 260, 15 Fed.R.Serv.3d 233, 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1833
View Case »
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403, 30 Media L. Rep. 1673, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3211, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4033, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 187
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. 398, 361 N.E.2d 1305

Facts

Nancy Ann K. Rice filed for divorce from John Rice after nearly twenty-seven years of marriage, during which they had two grown children. The wife, a homemaker with no vocational skills, had a negative net worth and relied on her husband’s financial support. The husband, who had been involved with another woman, had a net worth exceeding $1,000,000 and received significant income from his employment and gifts from his parents. The Probate Court ordered the husband to provide substantial financial support and property to the wife as part of the divorce settlement.

The parties were married for almost twenty-seven years and have two grown children. The wife, age fifty, is a homemaker, has never been employed for wages or salary and has no vocational skills.

Issue

Did the Probate Court have the authority to order the transfer of the husband's separate property acquired before marriage and as gifts during marriage, and was the award of alimony and property division excessive?

The husband appeals from this order on the ground that the Probate Court lacks authority under G.L. c. 208, s 34, to order the transfer of his separate property acquired before marriage and as gifts during marriage.

Rule

Under G.L. c. 208, s 34, the court has the discretion to assign to either spouse all or any part of the estate of the other, which includes separate nonmarital property.

General Laws c. 208, s 34, as appearing in St.1975, c. 400, s 33, provides that ‘(i)n addition to or in lieu of a judgment to pay alimony, the court may assign to either the husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other.’

Analysis

The court applied the rule by affirming that the Probate Court had broad discretion to assign property in divorce proceedings, including the husband's separate property. The court noted that the judge considered all mandatory statutory factors in determining the financial settlement, and there was no evidence that the judge based the decision on impermissible factors. The wife's financial needs and the husband's ability to pay were also taken into account.

The husband made no motion, as required by Rule 52(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure (1975), for findings of fact and conclusions of law by the judge.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Probate Court's decision, concluding that the orders for alimony and property division were not plainly wrong or excessive.

Therefore, on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the judge's order was plainly wrong and excessive.

Who won?

The wife prevailed in the case because the court found that the Probate Court acted within its authority and made a fair financial settlement based on the circumstances of the marriage.

The wife prevailed in the case because the court found that the Probate Court acted within its authority and made a fair financial settlement based on the circumstances of the marriage.

You must be