Title: Openshaw v. Openshaw

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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 
 
SJC-13473 
 
AMY SUE OPENSHAW  vs.  GLEN ROMNEY OPENSHAW. 
 
 
 
Plymouth.     December 6, 2023. - March 7, 2024. 
 
Present:  Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Kafker, Wendlandt, 
& Georges, JJ.1 
 
 
Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Division of property, Findings.  
Statute, Construction.  Words, "Marital lifestyle," "Need."  
 
 
 
 
Complaint for divorce filed in the Plymouth Division of the 
Probate and Family Court Department on December 7, 2018. 
 
 
The case was heard by Edward G. Boyle, III, J. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 
transferred the case from the Appeals Court. 
 
 
Jason V. Owens for the husband. 
Shaun B. Spencer for the wife. 
Andrea C. Kramer, Laura Gal, Kate Barry, Kimberly A. 
Bielan, & Jamie Ann Sabino, for Women's Bar Association of 
Massachusetts, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. 
Margaret J. Palladino, for Mass Family Advocacy Coalition, 
amicus curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
 
 
1 Justice Lowy participated in the deliberation on this case 
prior to his retirement. 
2 
 
WENDLANDT, J.  Many married couples privileged to have 
sufficient income often, as the idiom counsels, "save something 
for a rainy day";2 they might, for example, regularly set aside a 
portion of their income to purchase stocks and bonds, rather 
than country club memberships and recreational boats.  In this 
case, we are asked to consider for the first time the question 
whether a judge may account for a divorcing couple's custom of 
making regular contributions to their savings plans in 
determining, under G. L. c. 208, § 53 (alimony statute or § 53),  
the amount of alimony needed to maintain the marital lifestyle.  
Where, as here, the record supports that ongoing, regular saving 
was part of the couple's standard of living during the long-term 
marriage and that the parties' combined postdissolution income 
is adequate to allow both spouses to maintain the standard of 
living enjoyed during the marriage, we conclude that such 
consideration is appropriate.   
We further conclude that the Probate and Family Court judge 
did not abuse his direction in determining the recipient 
spouse's need for support in view of her reported expenses at 
the time of the trial, but that the judge's unexplained 
allocation of over ninety-eight percent of the parties' marital 
 
2 The idiom may be traced back in English to the 1580s, 
appearing in the work "Bugbears":  "Wold he haue me kepe nothyng 
agaynst a raynye day?"  Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.
oed.com/dictionary/rainy-day_n?tab=meaning_and_use#121516965.   
3 
 
liabilities to the payor spouse is unsupported by the judge's 
findings and at least arguably inconsistent with the judge's 
conclusion as to the equitable division of the marital estate 
under G. L. c. 208, § 34.  We therefore remand with instructions 
to reevaluate the portion of the judgment regarding the 
allocation of marital liabilities in light of our opinion and to 
enter a new judgment accordingly.3  
1.  Background.4  In August 1991, Amy Sue Openshaw (wife) 
and Glen Romney Openshaw (husband) were married in Salt Lake 
City, Utah.  The couple eventually moved to Massachusetts.  They 
had six children5 and enjoyed an upper middle class lifestyle; 
they funded their children's participation in extracurricular 
activities, contributed to their children's rent while the 
children attended college, sent some of their children to 
private high school, and accumulated personal property of 
significant value, such as jewelry, a collection of 
approximately twenty firearms, tools and equipment, home 
 
3 We acknowledge the briefs of amici curiae Mass Family 
Advocacy Coalition and Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts, 
Inc.  
 
4 While the judge made numerous findings, we summarize only 
those findings and facts relevant to the issues on appeal.  See 
Young v. Young, 478 Mass. 1, 3 (2017).  
 
5 Three of the children remained unemancipated as of the 
date of the trial; one was enrolled in college, and the two 
youngest were in high school.  
 
4 
 
furnishings, fine art and antiques, and a grand piano.   
In addition, because of the couple's generous annual income 
of over $1.3 million,6 and their comparatively modest spending,7 
they also routinely allocated significant portions of their 
income to investments and savings.  The couple habitually 
transferred any funds not used to cover the family's immediate 
expenses to specific investment and retirement accounts on a 
monthly basis.  They also consistently donated approximately ten 
percent of their income to their church in accordance with the 
tenets of their faith as members of the Church of Jesus Christ 
of Latter-day Saints.8 
The parties' cumulative assets amounted to at least $4.5 
million,9 several million of which was in the form of checking, 
savings, investment, and retirement accounts.  The couple lived 
 
6 This figure represents the couple's approximate average 
annual reported gross income across 2016 and 2017, the two full 
years preceding their separation. 
 
7 The husband asserted marital spending of $146,241 in 2016 
and $158,293 in 2017, excluding taxes and tithing.  The wife's 
financial statement indicated substantially higher spending, but 
still just a fraction of marital income.   
  
8 The couple's joint tax returns for 2016 and 2017 show 
$131,039 and $172,167 in charitable giving, respectively.   
 
9 The wife's March 2021 financial statement claims assets of 
$4,575,869.40.  The husband's March 2021 financial statement 
claims assets of $4,717,579.18.  Both figures include the value 
of the parties' marital home, which they owned free and clear. 
 
5 
 
together in the marital home in Hanover, which was valued at 
over $1.2 million, until November 2018. 
2.  Prior proceedings.  In December 2018, after nearly 
thirty years of marriage, the wife filed a complaint for 
divorce.10  At trial, the parties contested custody of their 
youngest child, alimony, child support, and the division of the 
marital estate.  At the time of the trial, the wife resided in 
the marital home, and the husband lived in Florida; the husband 
maintained little to no contact with any of the unemancipated 
children for the two years prior to trial.11   
In June 2021, the trial judge entered a judgment of divorce 
nisi, supported by a written memorandum comprising seventy-three 
enumerated paragraphs setting forth the judge's findings of fact 
as well as the rationale for his decision on the disputed 
matters.  The judge granted sole legal and primary physical 
custody of the couple's minor child to the wife.  Pursuant to 
the Child Support Guidelines, the judge also ordered the husband 
to pay the wife $980 per week in child support.  On appeal, the 
 
10 The wife had also filed a complaint for divorce in June 
2017, but the parties reconciled.  
 
11 On November 1, 2018, the wife obtained an abuse 
prevention order against the husband on behalf of herself and 
their two then-minor children.  The order expired in September 
2019. 
 
6 
 
husband does not contest the custody award or the amount of 
child support.   
With respect to alimony, after weighing the factors 
prescribed under the alimony statute, see discussion infra, the 
judge ordered the husband to pay $5,020 per week to the wife  
This amount was derived from the wife's reported total weekly 
spending provided on her most current financial statement, which 
included $1,000 per week in savings and $730.64 per week in 
charitable giving.12  Together with child support, the judgment 
required the husband to make total weekly payments of $6,000 to 
the wife.  
With respect to the division of the marital estate, the 
judge stated: 
"In light of all the factors set forth in G. L. c. 208, 
§ 34, especially the disparity in the parties' 
employability and opportunity to acquire future assets and 
income, the [c]ourt finds that a division of the marital 
estate with [the w]ife receiving approximately [fifty-five 
percent] and [the h]usband receiving approximately [forty-
five percent] is most equitable." 
 
Consistent with this desired distribution of the marital estate, 
the judge divided the marital assets between the parties fifty-
five percent to forty-five percent, in favor of the wife.   
 
Stating that "the [c]ourt finds it equitable to order the 
parties to be responsible for the payment of the liabilities 
 
12 The judge excluded some of the wife's claimed expenses 
from his calculation.  See infra, note 21. 
7 
 
listed in his or her individual name," the judge assigned to the 
husband liabilities of approximately $343,280 and consisting 
almost entirely of the family's income taxes incurred in tax 
years 2020 and 2021.  The wife was assigned liabilities of 
$5,032.91.  This distribution of the parties' liabilities left 
the wife with approximately fifty-nine percent of the parties' 
marital estate, and the husband with forty-one percent.13  The 
judge did not address the resulting deviation from the division 
of the marital estate that he had found to be "most equitable." 
 
After the judgment entered, the husband timely appealed, 
and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion.  
 
3.  Discussion.  a.  Alimony.  "Alimony" is defined in the 
Alimony Reform Act of 2011, St. 2011, c. 124 (act), as "the 
payment of support from a spouse, who has the ability to pay, to 
a spouse in need of support for a reasonable length of time, 
under a court order."  G. L. c. 208, § 48.  The power to award 
alimony is governed by the alimony statute.  See G. L. c. 208, 
§ 53.  See also Zaleski v. Zaleski, 469 Mass. 230, 233 (2014), 
quoting Gottsegen v. Gottsegen, 397 Mass. 617, 621-624 (1986) 
(power to award alimony is "wholly statutory").  The statute 
provides: 
 
13 Applying the figures supplied by the wife in her 
financial statement, the division skews slightly more in favor 
of the wife. 
8 
 
"In determining the appropriate form of alimony and in 
setting the amount and duration of support, a court shall 
consider:  the length of the marriage; age of the parties; 
health of the parties; income, employment and employability 
of both parties, including employability through reasonable 
diligence and additional training, if necessary; economic 
and non-economic contribution of both parties to the 
marriage; marital lifestyle; ability of each party to 
maintain the marital lifestyle; lost economic opportunity 
as a result of the marriage; and such other factors as the 
court considers relevant and material" (emphases added). 
 
G. L. c. 208, § 53 (a). 
i.  Saving.  The husband first contends that the judge 
improperly considered the parties' custom of allocating a 
significant portion of income as savings in setting the amount 
of spousal support payable to the wife.14  The husband's 
challenge to the spousal support order raises a question of 
statutory construction, which we review de novo.  See Cavanagh 
v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398, 405 (2022).   
 
14 We have not had occasion previously to address the 
question whether saving, when it is a regular practice during 
the marriage, may be considered in determining the amount of 
spousal support.  Contrary to the husband's contention, the 
Appeals Court did not address the issue in Cooper v. Cooper, 62 
Mass. App. Ct. 130 (2004).  Cooper concerned the propriety of an 
order modifying alimony based on the wife's postdivorce 
lifestyle rather than on the need to maintain the marital 
lifestyle.  Id. at 140.  Because the judge did not apply the 
appropriate material change in circumstances standard for 
revising alimony awards, among other errors, the Appeals Court 
remanded the matter.  See id.  The husband's reliance on A.M. v. 
R.M., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 1120 (2019), similarly is misplaced.   
 
9 
 
Our analysis begins with the alimony statute's plain 
language.  See Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc., 492 Mass. 676, 681 
(2023).   
"[A] statute must be interpreted according to the intent of 
the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by 
the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered 
in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief 
or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be 
accomplished, to the end that the purpose of its framers 
may be effectuated" (citation omitted).  
 
Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 
445 Mass. 745, 749 (2006).  "Ordinarily, where the language of a 
statute is plain and unambiguous, it is conclusive as to 
legislative intent."  Sharris v. Commonwealth, 480 Mass. 586, 
594 (2018), quoting Thurdin v. SEI Boston, LLC, 452 Mass. 436, 
444 (2008).15  We "look to the statutory scheme as a whole, so as 
to produce an internal consistency within the statute" 
(quotations and citations omitted).  Plymouth Retirement Bd. v. 
Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 483 Mass. 600, 605 (2019). 
A.  Marital lifestyle.  As set forth supra, the alimony 
statute enumerates certain factors, including the parties' 
"marital lifestyle" and the "ability of each party to maintain 
the marital lifestyle," that the judge must consider in 
 
15 "Where the statutory language is not conclusive, we may 
'turn to extrinsic sources, including the legislative history 
and other statutes, for assistance in our interpretation.'"  
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Morris, 490 Mass. 322, 332-333 (2022), 
quoting Chandler v. County Comm'rs of Nantucket County, 437 
Mass. 430, 435 (2002).  
10 
 
determining alimony.  G. L. c. 208, § 53 (a).  The wife 
maintains that, because the parties' custom of saving underlay 
the parties' standard of living, the judge appropriately 
considered saving in connection with his mandatory consideration 
of the parties' "marital lifestyle."  We agree. 
The plain meaning of "marital lifestyle" is the 
characteristic manner in which the couple chose to live their 
life during the marriage.  See Young v. Young, 478 Mass. 1, 6 
(2017), quoting Inker, Alimony and Assignment of Property: The 
New Statutory Scheme in Massachusetts, 10 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1, 
8 (1975) (marital lifestyle pertains to "the manner of living to 
which [the spouses have] been accustomed," and term "focus[es] 
on the spouses' lifestyle during the marriage"); Oxford English 
Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/lifestyle_n?tab
=meaning_and_use#39115718 (defining "lifestyle" as "[a] style or 
way of living"; "characteristic manner in which a person lives 
[or chooses to live] [one's] life"); Oxford English Dictionary, 
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/marital_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#3
8088113 (defining "marital" as "[o]f or relating to marriage, or 
the relations between [spouses]").   
As it regards the couple's financial decisions, "marital 
lifestyle" includes the typical way the parties regularly 
allocated their income during the marriage; to be considered the 
marital lifestyle, such allocations must be so customary as to 
11 
 
identify the parties' financial decision-making during the 
marriage.  See Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/
dictionary/characteristic_n?tab=meaning_and_use#9590365 
(defining "characteristic" as something "[t]hat serves to 
identify or to indicate the essential quality or nature of a 
person or thing; distinctive; typical").  Accord Rhew v. Rhew, 
138 N.C. App. 467, 473 (2000) ("the trial court can properly 
consider the parties' custom of making regular additions to 
savings plans as a part of their standard of living in 
determining the amount and duration of an alimony award" where 
"[e]vidence was presented that established an historical pattern 
of such contributions" [citation omitted]); Bakanowski v. 
Bakanowski, 2003 UT App 357, ¶ 16 (inclusion of saving as part 
of needs analysis permissible where contribution to savings 
accounts "was standard practice during the marriage and helped 
to form the couple's marital standard of living").   
Thus, the plain meaning of the alimony statute's directive 
that the judge must consider the "marital lifestyle" and the 
"ability of each party to maintain the marital lifestyle" 
requires consideration of saving where the evidentiary record 
shows it was a regular practice during the marriage.  G. L. 
c. 208, § 53 (a).  These statutory terms encompass not just 
consumption spending on goods and services, but also the 
12 
 
deliberate choice during the marriage to devote income to 
savings regularly.   
B.  Need.  This construction of "marital lifestyle" as 
permitting the consideration of the couple's pattern of 
contributions toward savings is buttressed by G. L. c. 208, 
§ 53 (b), which provides in relevant part:  "the amount of 
alimony should generally not exceed the recipient's need."16  The 
term "need" is not defined; however, in view of the alimony 
statute's enumerated factors, we have stated that 
"the need for support of the recipient spouse (here, the 
wife) under general term alimony[17] is the amount required 
to enable her to maintain the standard of living she had at 
the time of the separation leading to the divorce" 
(emphasis added). 
 
 
16 General Laws c. 208, § 53 (b), provides in full: 
 
"Except for reimbursement alimony or circumstances 
warranting deviation for other forms of alimony, the amount 
of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient's need 
or 30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties' 
gross incomes established at the time of the order being 
issued.  Subject to subsection (c), income shall be defined 
as set forth in the Massachusetts child support 
guidelines." 
 
The husband does not challenge the spousal support order on the 
ground that it exceeds the "presumptive parameters" that the 
amount should not exceed from thirty to thirty-five per cent of 
the parties' income differential.  See Young, 478 Mass. at 6.   
  
17 The present case concerns general term alimony, in light 
of the length of the marriage.  See G. L. c. 208, § 48. 
  
13 
 
Young, 478 Mass. at 2-3.  Where the parties' combined income is 
adequate to allow both spouses to maintain the standard of 
living enjoyed during marriage, "the recipient spouse's need for 
support is generally the amount needed to allow that spouse to 
maintain the [marital] lifestyle he or she enjoyed prior to 
termination of the marriage."18  Id. at 6, quoting Pierce v. 
Pierce, 455 Mass. 286, 296 (2009).  See 1 Lindey and Parley on 
Separation Agreements and Antenuptial Contracts § 22.63[2][e] 
(2d ed. 2023) ("standard of living experienced during the 
several years before the divorce" relevant for alimony 
determination is preseparation standard of living); L.D. Wardle 
& L.C. Nolan, Fundamental Principles of Family Law 715 (2d ed. 
2006) ("the historic base line for measuring need has been the 
standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage").   
Thus, where the parties have a combined income sufficient 
to permit both spouses to maintain the marital standard of 
living, the statute's limitation that the amount of alimony 
generally should not exceed the recipient spouse's need for 
support depends on the parties' marital lifestyle.  In other 
 
18 By contrast, "[w]here, as so often happens, the couple's 
collective income is inadequate to allow both spouses to 
maintain the lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage after 
their household is divided in two through divorce, 'the 
recipient spouse "does not have an absolute right to live a 
lifestyle to which he or she has been accustomed in a marriage 
to the detriment of the provider spouse."'"  Young, 478 Mass. at 
7, quoting Pierce v. Pierce, 455 Mass. 286, 296 (2009).   
14 
 
words, "'need' is a relative term for purposes of the act, [and] 
it must be measured in light of mandatory considerations that 
include the parties' marital lifestyle."  Zaleski, 469 Mass. at 
243.  See Young, 478 Mass. at 7 ("the parties' needs expanded in 
accordance with the increasingly available income during the 
marriage" [quotation omitted]).   
For example, where the parties' marital lifestyle at the 
time of their separation included lavish spending on luxuries, 
such as expensive vacations, high-end vehicles, art collections, 
and recreational boats, such discretionary spending is material 
to determining the amount of spousal support.  See, e.g., Young, 
478 Mass. at 4 (considering spousal support judgment in view of 
parties' lavish lifestyle during marriage, which included owning 
extravagant principal residence, maintaining Nantucket summer 
home, driving luxury vehicles, regularly dining out, enjoying 
expensive vacations, and purchasing luxury goods); D.L. v. G.L., 
61 Mass. App. Ct. 488, 490 (2004) (factoring in spending on "the 
finest furniture, rugs, china, and jewelry," extensive travel, 
frequent entertaining, and membership in private social clubs, 
among other luxuries).  Thus, the couple's customary financial 
decisions during the marriage regularly to allocate income for 
savings, no less than their consumption spending, must be 
considered where it characterized the parties' marital lifestyle 
and defined their standard of living.   
15 
 
Where the family budget during the marriage is 
characterized by regular saving, fewer resources necessarily are 
available for pure consumption spending.  If, as the husband 
maintains, alimony strictly is measured by the marital level of 
consumption on goods and services, then the recipient spouse 
either must reduce that level of consumption in order to 
continue the pattern of saving that characterized the marital 
lifestyle or must abandon the practice altogether.  See, e.g., 
In re Marriage of Drapeau, 93 Cal. App. 4th 1086, 1096 (2001) 
(Drapeau) (purpose of couple's saving was to retire early, goal 
which payor spouse could achieve but payee spouse could not 
without savings alimony); Vadala v. Vadala, 145 N.C. App. 478, 
479 (2001) (without savings alimony spouse "will be forced to 
work much longer than she would have, had she continued to enjoy 
the standard of living to which she had become accustomed during 
her marriage, since she is unable to accumulate savings of an 
amount that would allow her to retire").  Such a construction 
would frustrate the alimony statute's purpose of maintaining 
each spouse's marital lifestyle where the parties' 
postdissolution income makes that outcome possible. 
Because it is the manner in which a couple consistently 
allocated marital income -- not just how they spent it on day-
to-day expenses and luxuries -- that determines their standard 
of living during the marriage, nothing in the limitation that 
16 
 
the alimony award generally must not exceed the recipient 
spouse's "need," see G. L. c. 208, § 53 (b), precludes a judge 
from considering the parties' regular practices of saving.  
"[T]here is no demonstrable difference between one family's 
habitual use of its income to fund savings and another family's 
use of its income to regularly purchase luxury cars or enjoy 
extravagant vacations."  Lombardi v. Lombardi, 447 N.J. Super. 
26, 39 (App. Div. 2016).  "[I]t would be a perverse state of the 
law if we, as a rule, always included in an alimony calculation 
all sums parties spent, even imprudently, but excluded sums 
wisely saved."  Mintz v. Mintz, 2023 UT App. 17, ¶ 26.  It would 
in effect "penalize those who are prudent enough to save during 
marriage."  Drapeau, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1096.   
C.  Division of marital estate.  The husband contends that 
a couple's habit of saving cannot be considered in setting the 
amount of alimony because it is already subsumed in the marital 
estate in the form of assets; as such, the husband argues, 
saving already is considered in connection with the division of 
the marital estate under G. L. c. 208, § 34.19  That provision 
 
19 General Laws c. 208, § 34, provides in part: 
 
"In addition to or in lieu of a judgment to pay alimony, 
the court may assign to either husband or wife all or any 
part of the estate of the other, including but not limited 
to, . . . funds accrued during the marriage and which shall 
include, but not be limited to, retirement benefits, 
military retirement benefits if qualified under and to the 
17 
 
enumerates "the opportunity of each [party] for future 
acquisition of capital assets and income" as one factor that the 
judge must weigh in equitably distributing the parties' marital 
property.  The husband argues that this factor therefore 
precludes the judge from considering the parties' habit of 
saving portions of their income during the marriage as an 
element of the parties' "marital lifestyle" under the alimony 
statute.   
Of course, the division of marital property pursuant to 
G. L. c. 208, § 34, and the provision of alimony pursuant to 
§ 53, are to be considered in relation to each other.  See D.L., 
61 Mass. App. Ct. at 508 ("alimony and property division . . . 
are interrelated remedies that cannot be viewed apart").  Both 
alimony, under § 53, and the division of the marital estate, 
under § 34, are committed to the sound discretion of the trial 
judge to balance equitably, and the judge may adjust the award 
of each in relation to the other.  See id.   
 
extent provided by [F]ederal law, pension, profit-sharing, 
annuity, deferred compensation and insurance.  In fixing 
the nature and value of the property, if any, to be so 
assigned, the court . . . shall consider the length of the 
marriage, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, 
the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of 
income, vocational skills, employability, estate, 
liabilities and needs of each of the parties, the 
opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital 
assets and income, and the amount and duration of alimony, 
if any, awarded under [G. L. c. 208, §§] 48 to 55, 
inclusive" (emphasis added). 
18 
 
While the husband is correct that the judge must ensure 
that the financial arrangement is fair "as a whole," Hassey v. 
Hassey, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 518, 523 n.12 (2014), quoting Grubert 
v. Grubert, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 811, 822 (1985), nothing in § 34 
precludes consideration of the parties' custom of allocating 
substantial portions of their income to savings as part of the 
"marital lifestyle" under § 53.  To be sure, an equitable 
distribution of the marital estate ensures that both parties 
reap the benefits of regular saving during the marriage in the 
form of the marital assets.  However, where, as here, the 
parties' postdissolution income is sufficient for each party to 
continue to live the marital lifestyle, if routine saving is not 
considered in connection with the determination of alimony, the 
recipient spouse will be forced to rely on the appreciation of 
current assets while the payor spouse will be able to continue 
the full extent of the marital lifestyle, including regular 
saving.  See Lombardi, 447 N.J. Super. at 40 ("it is not 
equitable to require [the wife] to rely solely on the assets she 
received through equitable distribution to support the standard 
of living while [the husband] is not confronted with the same 
burden").   
Accordingly, we conclude that where, as here, a married 
couple has an established practice of saving during the 
marriage, a judge properly may consider such saving as a 
19 
 
component of the couple's marital lifestyle in awarding alimony.  
In doing so, we join the vast majority of jurisdictions to have 
considered the issue.20  We realize that not everyone's resources 
 
20 See In re Marriage of Weibel, 965 P.2d 126, 129-130 
(Colo. App. 1998) ("an appropriate rate of savings . . . can, 
and in an appropriate case should, be considered as a living 
expense when considering an award of, or reduction in, 
maintenance"); In re Marriage of Stenzel, 908 N.W.2d 524, 536 
(Iowa Ct. App. 2018) ("retirement savings in a reasonable sum 
may be a part of the needs analysis in fixing spousal support"); 
Lombardi, 447 N.J. Super. at 29-30 ("regular savings must be 
considered in a determination of alimony"); Rhew, 138 N.C. App. 
at 473 (trial judge should have considered "savings made in 
accordance with a pre-existing pattern in determining 
defendant's accustomed standard of living");  LaVoi v. LaVoi, 
505 N.W.2d 384, 387 (N.D. 1993) (upholding lower court's spousal 
support award, which afforded wife "a modest opportunity to plan 
some retirement savings"); Bakanowski, 2003 UT App 357, ¶ 16 
("The critical question is whether funds for post-divorce 
savings, investment, and retirement accounts are necessary 
because contributing to such accounts was standard practice 
during the marriage and helped to form the couple's marital 
standard of living"); Miller v. Cox, 44 Va. App. 674, 686 (2005) 
(consideration of savings during marriage allows payee spouse to 
"continue to save money and invest it in a manner to which she 
was accustomed during the marriage"); Hubert v. Hubert,  159 
Wis. 2d 803, 820 (Ct. App. 1990) (trial judge erred by not 
"set[ting] maintenance at a level that would permit [the wife] 
to continue saving and investing," thereby failing "to maintain 
a standard of living reasonably comparable to that which she 
enjoyed before the divorce").  See also Rainwater v. Rainwater, 
177 Ariz. 500, 505 (Ct. App. 1993) ("[H]usband objects that 
wife's expenses were overstated by the amount of $337.60 for 
monthly savings and retirement contributions.  Husband, however, 
has cited no authority for the proposition that this is an 
illegitimate expense item"); Drapeau, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1098 
("trial court should have considered the parties' practice of 
savings as an element in their [marital standard of living]").  
But see Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So. 2d 1138, 1140-1141 (Fla. 
2000) (rejecting savings alimony); Kuroda v. Kuroda, 87 Haw. 
419, 429-430 (Ct. App. 1998) (same).   
 
20 
 
permit such saving during the marriage, and that in many cases 
the parties' financial circumstances after dissolution may 
require that the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage 
be curtailed.  In the circumstances presented here, however, as 
the couple's combined postdissolution income is adequate to 
allow both spouses to maintain the marital standard of living, 
the judge properly considered the parties' practice of saving as 
an element of their marital lifestyle.   
ii.  Financial support for wife's expenses.  The husband 
also challenges the judge's decision to credit the wife's 
financial statement disclosing her expenses at the time of trial 
and to base the alimony award on her current reported spending 
rather than on the husband's accounting of the household's 
spending in the three years prior to the couple's separation.   
In determining whether to award spousal support, and the 
amount thereof, under G. L. c. 208, § 53, a trial judge enjoys 
"broad discretion."  Young, 478 Mass. at 5-6, quoting Zaleski, 
469 Mass. at 235.  Such an award "will not be disturbed on 
appeal unless plainly wrong and excessive" (quotation omitted).  
Zaleski, supra at 236, quoting Heins v. Ledis, 422 Mass. 477, 
481 (1996).  See Cavanagh, 490 Mass. at 405 (on appeal, our 
review is only for abuse of discretion).  Instead, we confine 
our review to determining whether the judge's factual findings 
that the parties challenge on appeal are clearly erroneous, 
21 
 
whether the judge considered the required statutory factors, 
whether the judge relied on any irrelevant factors, and whether 
the reasons for the judge's conclusions are "apparent" from the 
judge's findings.  Zaleski, supra at 235-236.   
The husband is correct that the proper measure of the 
recipient's need for support is "the marital lifestyle the 
parties enjoyed during the marriage, as established by the judge 
at the time of the order being issued."  Young, 478 Mass. at 7.  
However, the crux of the husband's claim is not that the judge 
neglected this instruction; instead, his argument is that the 
judge credited the wrong evidence in determining the wife's 
need.  Such determinations fall squarely within the judge's 
broad discretion.  See id. at 5. 
In financial filings, the husband represented that, 
excluding taxes and tithing, the family spent $193,203 in 2015, 
$146,241 in 2016, and $158,293 in 2017 (the three full years 
preceding separation).21  The judge found, however, that the 
husband's accounting failed "to recognize that a significant 
aspect of the parties' marital lifestyle was saving."  
 
21 As the wife aptly notes, the husband failed to include 
the bases for these calculations in the record on appeal.  "The 
burden is on the appellant to ensure that an adequate record 
exists for an appellate court to evaluate."  Commonwealth v. 
Woods, 419 Mass. 366, 371 (1995).  Accordingly, there is no 
record basis to assess the husband's assertions as to the 
household's expenses for these years. 
 
22 
 
Accordingly, the judge did not use the husband's reported 
figures to determine the amount of alimony.  
The judge further considered the husband's report of the 
wife's spending following their separation.  Specifically, the 
husband calculated that the wife spent $79,704.09 in 2018, 
$92,623.78 in 2019, and $224,144.64 in 2020.  The judge found, 
however, that the wife's spending in these years was limited by 
the amount of support she received.  Accordingly, he also 
declined to use these figures in calculating the alimony award.  
This determination that the wife's artificially constrained 
spending from 2018 through 2020 was not a reliable proxy for the 
marital lifestyle is well founded.   
The judge instead credited portions of the wife's current 
financial statement as the best available record of the amount 
needed to maintain her marital lifestyle.  He did not accept the 
wife's report blindly; he scrutinized the financial statement, 
crediting some expenses but excluding others to determine the 
wife's need for support.22  The judge's decision to credit this 
evidence followed a four-day trial, which included oral 
testimony and exhibits setting forth both parties' financial 
 
22 Specifically, the wife reported a combined child support 
and alimony need of $7,754.97 per week.  The judge subtracted 
the wife's "anticipated expenses and accountant fees" and added 
a weekly housing expense (because of the expected sale of the 
marital home), as well as a weekly medical insurance expense.   
 
23 
 
submissions.  On this record, we cannot say that the judge erred 
in relying on financial statements filed shortly before trial to 
evaluate need based on the parties' lifestyle during the 
marriage.23  See generally Massachusetts Divorce Law Practice 
Manual § 6.4 (Mass. Cont. Legal Educ. 4th ed. 2019 & Supp. 2021) 
("The financial statement . . . provides information relevant to 
the factors that must be considered when determining the 
appropriate form, amount, and duration of alimony. . . .  As an 
exhibit, the statement can take the place of the attorney orally 
asking all the questions on the statement and receiving oral 
answers").24  
 
23 Notably, the wife's financial statements showed expenses 
far below the husband's own average weekly spending of 
approximately $14,000 during the period between separation and 
trial, even though the wife lived with and cared for their minor 
child while the husband lived alone in an undisclosed location 
in Florida for much of the separation period. 
 
24 See also Young, 478 Mass. at 3-5 (in divorce action 
initiated in January 2013, trial judge evaluated, but ultimately 
did not credit fully, financial statements filed in October 2013 
and September 2014 in assessing alimony amount for judgment 
issued in September 2015); C.D.L. v. M.M.L., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 
146, 152 (2008) (trial judge determined wife's needs by 
beginning with wife's "most recent financial statement"); Rule 
401 of the Supplemental Rules of the Probate and Family Court 
(2012) (parties are required to submit financial statements 
showing, inter alia, "current income and expenses" within forty-
five days of service of summons, and judge "may require . . . 
during the pendency of a . . . divorce action . . . a new 
financial statement containing current information"); Uniform 
Probate Court Practice XXX (1982) ("No complaint for divorce 
. . . shall be marked for a hearing unless a financial statement 
of each party is on file with the court").  Cf. D.B. v. J.B., 97 
Mass. App. Ct. 170, 177 (2020) ("although the judge was unable 
24 
 
Moreover, where the family earned approximately $1.3 
million per year in 2016 and 2017, and the husband's 
postseparation expenses exceeded what he claimed the entire 
family spent preseparation -- despite the wife retaining primary 
responsibility for the unemancipated children -- we see no error 
in the judge's decision to discredit the husband's assertion 
that the needs of the marital lifestyle required only ten to 
fifteen percent of the household income.  The judge acted within 
his discretion in determining that the evidence submitted by the 
wife reflected a valid assessment of the marital lifestyle.   
The husband's challenge to the evidentiary basis for the 
wife's saving also fails.  Evidence elicited at trial supports a 
conclusion that the parties' marital lifestyle included a 
pattern and practice of saving.25  Because we conclude that a 
 
to determine the wife's 'true need' based on her financial 
statement, given the discretion afforded by the act, it was 
permissible for her instead [or in addition] to consider the 
various mandatory and discretionary factors as prescribed by 
[G. L. c. 208, § 53 (a),] to fashion an alimony award that would 
be appropriate in providing the wife the means to maintain the 
marital lifestyle"). 
 
25 The couple's income in 2016 and 2017, the two full years 
preceding the parties' separation, exceeded $1.3 million per 
year.  According to the husband's figures, the couple spent only 
$146,241 in 2016 and $158,293 in 2017 (and donated an additional 
$131,039 and $172,167 in each year, respectively).  The husband 
testified that he tried to "keep as little amount of cash as 
possible in cash accounts"; he would "look out over the next 
month or two or three and try to estimate what those expenses 
are going to be and . . . try to budget for those with cash," 
and when he had additional cash he would "try to get that into 
25 
 
judge may consider a marital practice of saving in determining a 
recipient spouse's need, and the record supports such a routine 
practice here, the judge did not abuse his discretion by 
factoring the parties' marital practice of saving into the 
alimony award.26  
 
Finally, the judgment, findings, and rationale of the judge 
reflect that he considered and weighed each of the mandatory 
factors required by G. L. c. 208, § 53 (a).  Therefore, we 
conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in 
connection with the amount of weekly spousal support.   
b.  Division of liabilities.  The husband also challenges 
the judge's division of the parties' liabilities.  The power to 
make an equitable division of the marital estate is entrusted to 
the judge's discretion, and we review the decision to ensure the 
judge properly relied on the statutory factors enumerated in 
G. L. c. 208, § 34.  Adams v. Adams, 459 Mass. 361, 371 (2011), 
S.C., 466 Mass. 1015 (2013).  We must determine "whether the 
reasons for the judge's conclusions are apparent in his findings 
 
one of the securities investment accounts."  The wife identified 
particular accounts that were used for savings, investments, and 
retirement funds.  Financial statements identifying these 
accounts, along with their values, were included in the record.  
The evidence more than supported the wife's reported amount of 
weekly saving. 
 
26 The husband misstates that the wife conceded that the 
husband's calculations were accurate.   
 
26 
 
and rulings" (quotation and citation omitted).  Id.  The judge's 
decision as to equitable distribution is subject to reversal 
only if the division was "plainly wrong and excessive."  
Zaleski, 469 Mass. at 245, quoting Baccanti v. Morton, 434 Mass. 
787, 793 (2001).   
 
In dividing the marital estate, exact "[m]athematical 
precision is not required."  Ross v. Ross, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 77, 
81 (2000), quoting Fechtor v. Fechtor, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 859, 
861 (1989) (accepting trial judge's approximate valuation of 
marital estate).  However, "[i]t is the duty of the reviewing 
court to consider whether the apportionment of assets flows 
rationally from the judge's findings under § 34."  Calvin C. v. 
Amelia A., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 714, 727 (2021), quoting Casey v. 
Casey, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 623, 629 (2011) (reversing judgment 
where judge ordered equal division of marital estate equity but 
assigned obligation to repay one shared liability solely to 
husband, substantially reducing his share of estate equity).  
See Martin v. Martin, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 921, 921 (1990) 
(findings must "lead logically to" result). 
 
Here, the judge concluded that "a division of the marital 
estate with [the w]ife receiving approximately [fifty-five 
percent] and [the h]usband receiving approximately [forty-five 
percent] is most equitable."  Accordingly, the judge awarded 
27 
 
fifty-five percent of the marital assets to the wife and forty-
five percent to the husband.   
With regard to marital liabilities, however, the judge 
assigned to each spouse the liabilities listed in his and her 
own name, resulting in the wife being responsible for just 
$5,032 in liabilities, and the husband $343,280, or 98.6 percent 
of the total marital debts.  While the liabilities assigned to 
the wife consisted solely of credit card bills, all but $280 of 
the liabilities assigned to the husband were for the family's 
unpaid tax debt incurred in 2020 and 2021.  This assignment of 
liabilities skewed the net division of the marital estate to a 
split of approximately fifty-nine percent to forty-one percent.27  
The record does not reveal the rationale for this deviation of 
over $300,000 from the judge's stated intent to divide the 
marital estate with fifty-five percent to the wife and forty-
five percent to the husband.  See Calvin C., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 
at 727; Martin, 29 Mass. App. Ct. at 921.  Moreover, the judge 
did not articulate any reason why these liabilities, which 
consisted primarily of the family's tax debt, should be assigned 
 
27 The wife notes that the judge's stated goal was to divide 
the marital estate between the parties "approximately" fifty-
five percent to forty-five percent, rather than to divide the 
estate "exactly" in that manner, and that therefore the 
assignment of liabilities was not inconsistent with the judge's 
determination.  But, here, the extent of the deviation is 
substantial and unexplained.   
 
28 
 
solely to the husband, aside from noting that the wife "acted 
within her right to file [taxes] separately."  While the wife 
very well may have been entitled to file separately, that right 
does not bear on the equitable division of the tax debt, the 
primary marital liability.  Accordingly, we conclude that the 
division of liabilities was erroneous.28 
4.  Conclusion.  So much of the judgment of the Probate and 
Family Court as addressed the division of liabilities is 
vacated; the judgment is otherwise affirmed, and the matter is 
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
28 As discussed supra, the judge addressed not only the 
financial obligations of the parties going forward, but also the 
contested legal and physical custody of their youngest child.  
In determining custody, parental conduct may be an appropriate 
consideration.  See, e.g., Hunter v. Rose, 463 Mass. 488, 494-
495 (2012) ("Factors a judge may weigh are whether one parent's 
home is more stable in terms of a parent's work schedule, 
whether siblings are being raised together, and whether one 
parent seeks to undermine the relationship a child has with the 
other parent").  Moreover, "conduct having an adverse impact on 
the marriage or the marital estate" is, in limited 
circumstances, a valid consideration in determining the 
equitable division of property.  Kittredge v. Kittredge, 441 
Mass. 28, 38 (2004).  Contrary to the husband's contention, 
nothing in the judgment indicates that the judge improperly 
relied on the husband's "blameworthy conduct" in dividing the 
marital estate.  Putnam v. Putnam, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 15-16 
(1977).