The Probate and Family Court has wide discretion in fashioning awards of property division and support in a divorce – which is an excellent reason to settle a case prior to trial. So long as a judge has made findings consistent with the obligations imposed by c.208 s.34, that judgment cannot be reversed unless it is “plainly wrong and excessive.” Practically speaking, you could have the same fact pattern and two different judges make two completely different decisions and the Appeals Court could uphold both of them. It is important to note that judicial discretion, while wide, is not unlimited. In this case, the Court articulated a two-part test. First, the Court must examine the judge’s findings of fact to determine whether all relevant statutory factors were considered and to ensure that only those factors were considered. Second, the Court must determine whether the reasons for the judge’s conclusions were apparent in his ruling. Redding v. Redding, 398 Mass. 102 (1986)
- Alimony
- Arbitration of Family Law Issues
- Attorney-Client Privilege
- Attribution of Income
- Beneficiary Designation
- Child Support
- College
- Contempt
- Dependency Exemptions
- Division of Assets
- Earned Bonus
- Earning Capacity / Imputed Income
- Earnings in a Sub-S
- Emancipation
- Financial Restraining Order on Assets
- Foreign Custody
- Grandparent Visitation
- Health Insurance
- Imputing Income
- Income Equalization
- Income of Second Spouse
- Inheritance
- Inherited Assets
- Joint Legal Custody
- Judicial Discretion
- Jurisdiction
- Life Insurance
- Marital Estate
- Mediation / Unauthorized Practice of Law
- Merger and Survival
- Modification
- Non-Disparagement Provision
- Parent Coordinator
- Parental Fitness
- Parenting Time
- Plan Document Rule
- Postnuptial
- Prenuptial
- QDRO
- “Real Advantage” Standard
- Restraining Order
- Retained Earnings
- Retroactive Support
- Rights of Unmarried Partners
- Same Sex Marriage
- Self-Employment Income
- Stock Options
- Valuation Date
