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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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–12551

LAYNE C. CONNOR vs. WILLIAM P. BENEDICT.

Middlesex. November 6, 2018. - March 7, 2019.

Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & 

Kafker, JJ.

Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Division of property.

Marriage.

Complaint for divorce filed in the Middlesex Division of 

the Probate and Family Court Department on June 2, 2014.

The case was heard by Kevin R. Connelly, J.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 

transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

Robert Clark for the husband.

Marc G. Bellerose for the wife.

LENK, J. Layne C. Connor (wife) filed a complaint for 

divorce in June 2014 against William P. Benedict (husband), to 

whom she had been married for a little more than two years, and 

with whom she had lived for much of the prior twelve years. 

Following a trial, a judge of the Probate and Family Court
2

issued a judgment of divorce nisi that awarded general term 

alimony to the wife and, among other things, divided the marital 

estate such that fifty-five percent of the over-all assets were 

awarded to the husband and forty-five percent to the wife. 

Although the legal marriage lasted 2.25 years, for purposes of 

determining the amount of alimony pursuant to the Alimony Reform 

Act of 2011, St. 2011, c. 124, the judge considered the marriage 

to have been of slightly more than eight years' duration. In 

doing so, the judge took into account an approximately six-year 

period from 2005 to 2011, during which he found that the parties 

had lived together and had engaged in an economic marital 

partnership. The husband appealed, and we transferred the case 

to this court on our own motion.

The husband challenges the alimony award on two grounds. 

First, he claims that, as a matter of law, the wife was 

precluded from entering an economic marital partnership with him 

during much of the six-year period because she received alimony 

payments from her former spouse during that time. In the 

alternative, the husband claims that, even if the wife could 

have entered into an economic marital partnership, the judge did 

not make sufficient findings to support a determination that she 

had done so. The husband also challenges the division of the 

marital estate on the grounds that the judge selected the wrong 

valuation date; made an incorrect determination of the assets in 
3

the marital estate; improperly assigned liabilities to the 

husband; and did not clarify the distribution of the retirement 

accounts. We affirm.

1. Background. We summarize the judge's findings of fact, 

supplemented by undisputed facts in the record and reserving 

certain facts for later discussion. See Pierce v. Pierce, 455 

Mass. 286, 288 (2009).

a. Early years (2000 to 2004). When the parties met in 

August 2000, the wife owned a single-family house. In July 

2001, she sold that property and used the proceeds to make a 

down payment on a house in Maynard. The parties began living 

together in the Maynard house in August 2001, along with the 

wife's minor son.1 At the time, the husband recently had filed 

for bankruptcy; his name did not appear on the deed or mortgage. 

Nonetheless, the parties shared the mortgage payments, as well 

as the costs of utilities, groceries, and other household 

expenses. At some point in 2001, the wife became disabled and 

unable to work.2 In 2003, she began receiving disability 

payments.

 

1 Each party had a son from a prior marriage. The husband's 

son did not live with the couple.

2 Due to her disability, the wife remains incapable of 

working and is not expected to be able to work in the future.
4

b. Australia (2004 to 2005). From March 2004 to September 

2005, the wife relocated to Australia with her son in order to 

receive medical treatment. The parties arranged for the husband 

to live in the house in Maynard while he coordinated with a 

realtor to sell it. In September 2004, after the house had been 

sold, the husband moved to a rental townhouse in Shirley. Some 

of the proceeds from the sale were used to pay the wife's 

medical bills; $5,000 went to the husband for improvements he 

had made to the house while the wife was away; the wife received 

the remainder.

c. Reunification (2005 to 2012). The wife returned to the 

United States in October 2005, when her Australian medical visa 

expired. In November 2005, the wife moved into the townhouse in 

Shirley and the parties resumed living together, sharing rent 

and utility expenses. The husband provided for the wife's 

health insurance through his employer's "domestic partner 

benefits program."

In November 2006, the parties jointly purchased a house in 

Townsend (marital home).3 They each contributed at least $44,000 

 

3 The parties dispute the current value of the marital home 

and provided no evidence to support their varying estimates. 

The judge declined to make a finding as to the value of the 

house; he ordered the parties to sell the house and to share the 

sale proceeds equally.
5

to the down payment.4 They made substantial improvements to the 

house, including installing hardwood floors, retiling several 

rooms, and building a gymnasium in the basement. The wife 

purchased most of the furniture, using credit cards; the husband 

paid at least some of the credit card bills. The parties also 

bought additional household items, such as a dining room set,

together. Throughout the time they lived in the marital home, 

they shared the costs of the mortgage, utilities, and other 

household expenses.

In December 2008, the husband's employer terminated the 

wife's health insurance due to a change in company policy 

concerning "domestic partners." In response, the wife obtained 

COBRA insurance at a monthly cost of $500, and the husband began 

contributing "slightly more" to the household expenses.

The wife's minor son lived with the parties in the marital 

home and became close to the husband. When the husband's father 

passed away in 2011, the husband named the wife's son in the 

obituary as a grandson of the deceased.

 

4 The judge found that the wife used $50,000 from the sale 

of her former house toward the down payment on the marital home.

At another point in the decision, however, the judge noted that 

the wife contributed $44,000 toward the down payment on that 

house. It is not clear whether the amount of $44,000 represents 

a portion of the funds from the sale of the wife's former house, 

or whether it represents an additional payment on the marital 

home.
6

d. Receipt of alimony from prior spouse. The wife and her

prior spouse had divorced in 2001. After that divorce, the wife 

received regular child support and alimony payments. By 2006, 

the husband was "at least somewhat aware" of the alimony

payments, which ceased in 2011.

e. Marriage and separation (2012 to 2014). The parties 

were married on February 18, 2012. Thereafter, the wife again 

received health insurance through the husband's employer, at 

that point as his spouse.

The trial judge found that, throughout the course of the 

marriage (including at least the 6.33-year period in which they 

lived together immediately prior to their legal marriage), the 

parties enjoyed an "upper-middle-income lifestyle." They dined 

out two to three times per week, and traveled together several 

times per year to destinations such as Switzerland, the Bahamas, 

and California. The husband purchased diamond earrings, 

pendants, rings, and bracelets for the wife.

During 2013, however, the parties had a series of 

disagreements. The wife testified to incidents of abuse and

harassment by the husband, and both parties suggested that the 

other had used intoxicating substances to excess. Ultimately, 

the judge found that the parties suffered from "a great deal of 

marital discord." The wife and her minor son left the marital 
7

home on May 25, 2014, and began renting an apartment, while the 

husband and his adult son lived in the marital home.5

f. Divorce. The wife filed a complaint for divorce in the 

Probate and Family Court on June 2, 2014; the husband accepted 

service on June 13, 2014. In July 2014, the wife sought a

number of temporary orders, and the motion judge, who was not 

the trial judge, ordered the husband to pay temporary alimony 

and all expenses related to the marital home. At trial, the 

husband and wife testified as the only witnesses, and submitted 

individual financial statements.

A judgment of divorce nisi issued on August 25, 2016. The 

trial judge determined that, at the time of trial, the wife was 

receiving disability payments, child support, and disability 

benefits for her child, totaling approximately $1,375 per week. 

The husband remained in good health and had been able to 

maintain his job at a large corporation, where he earned $2,832

per week,6 as well as retirement, medical, and other benefits. 

The judge ordered the husband to maintain payments on the wife's 

 

5 The wife describes this situation as "essentially 

subsidizing the husband and his son's lifestyle while she 

simultaneously went into debt."

6 Because of the commissions the husband received on complex 

financial products, his income fluctuated greatly from year to 

year. For instance, the husband's reported salaries during the 

eight years preceding the divorce ranged from lows of 

$124,623.50 in 2008 and $128,558.72 in 2015 to highs of 

$362,838.68 in 2011 and $305,153.51 in 2014.
8

health insurance and to maintain a life insurance policy in her 

name. The judge also ordered the husband to pay alimony in the 

amount of $511 per week for a period of sixty-one months. With 

respect to the division of property, the judge awarded fiftyfive percent of the assets to the husband and forty-five percent 

to the wife, with the exception of the marital home, which was 

to be sold and the proceeds divided evenly.

2. Discussion. The husband contends that the judge erred 

in calculating the duration of the marriage for purposes of 

awarding alimony, and also that the judge erred in his division 

of the marital estate.

a. Payment of alimony. In determining the length of 

alimony payments to be awarded, the judge found that the parties 

had been legally married for 2.25 years. See G. L. c. 208, 

§ 48. A judge, however, may "increase the length of the 

marriage if there is evidence that the parties' economic marital 

partnership began during their cohabitation period prior to the 

marriage." See id. Here, the judge determined that the parties 

had cohabited and engaged in an economic marital partnership for 

approximately 6.33 years, from November 2005, when they lived 

together in Shirley, to the date of their marriage in February 

2012. The judge therefore increased the duration of the 
9

marriage to include that period,7 and ordered payment of alimony 

for 5.148 years, the corresponding presumptive maximum duration 

under the statute.8

The husband argues that it was error to consider the 6.33 

years as an economic marital partnership, because, as a matter 

of law, the wife was precluded from entering an economic marital 

partnership during the time when she was receiving alimony from 

a former spouse, and, even if she could have entered into an 

economic marital partnership, the judge's findings of fact are

insufficient to support a determination that she had done so.

i. Durational limits on alimony. Alimony is "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." See 

G. L. c. 208, § 48. "The purpose of alimony is to provide 

adequate support for a spouse who needs it." See Williams v. 

Massa, 431 Mass. 619, 634 (2000). General term alimony, in 

 

7 At trial, the parties disputed whether the period from 

August 2001 to February 2004, during which they cohabited in 

Maynard, also should qualify as a period of economic marital 

partnership. The judge declined to increase the length of the 

marriage to include that period of time. See note 14, infra.

8 Combining the 2.25-year legal marriage and the 6.33-year 

economic marital partnership, the judge calculated the duration 

of the marriage to be 8.58 years. Pursuant to G. L. c. 208, 

§ 49 (b), because the total duration of the marriage fell 

between five and ten years, the presumptive maximum duration of 

alimony payments is sixty percent of 8.58 years, i.e., 5.148 

years.
10

particular, aims to support one spouse who has become 

"economically dependent" on the other. See G. L. c. 208, § 48.

"A judge has broad discretion when awarding alimony under 

the statute." Zaleski v. Zaleski, 469 Mass. 230, 235 (2014). 

Nonetheless, the "reasonable length of time" for which alimony 

payments may be ordered is constrained by the Alimony Reform Act 

of 2011, which sets presumptive durational limits on general 

term alimony. See G. L. c. 208, § 49. The limits are premised 

on the length of the parties' marriage; the longer the marriage, 

the longer the maximum permissible duration of alimony, up to a 

maximum cap.9 G. L. c. 208, § 49 (b). See 2 C.P. Kindregan, 

Jr., M. McBrien, & P.A. Kindregan, Family Law and Practice 

§ 53:1, at 1134 (4th ed. 2013) ("The longer a marriage lasts the 

more likely it is that there will be a closer economic union and 

dependence on support"). In order to determine the duration of 

an award of general term alimony, therefore, a judge first must 

calculate the length of the parties' marriage. See G. L. 

c. 208, § 49 (b) (1)-(4); Duff-Kareores v. Kareores, 474 Mass. 

528, 535 (2016).

 

9 "The legislative history clearly shows that the broad 

discretion judges historically have had in making awards of 

alimony was not affected by the Alimony Reform Act of 2011, St. 

2011, c. 124 . . . ." See Zaleski v. Zaleski, 469 Mass. 230, 

235 n.13 (2014). Judges also may deviate from the presumptive 

maximum durations "in the interests of justice," upon a written 

finding. See G. L. c. 208, § 49 (b).
11

General Law c. 208, § 48, defines the "[l]ength of the 

marriage" as "the number of months from the date of legal 

marriage to the date of service of a complaint or petition for 

divorce . . . duly filed in a court." The parties were married 

on February 18, 2012, and the husband accepted service of the 

complaint for divorce on June 13, 2014. There was no error in 

the judge's calculation that the parties had been married for 

2.25 years.

As stated, the statute also provides that "the court may 

increase the length of the marriage if there is evidence that 

the parties' economic marital partnership began during their 

cohabitation period prior to the marriage." G. L. c. 208, § 48.

A period of "cohabitation" and "economic marital partnership"

"resembles, but is not equivalent to, a legal marriage." See 

Duff-Kareores, 474 Mass. at 534-535. During such a period, the 

parties act like a married couple, and form the financial 

dependencies, crystalized in marriage, for which alimony later 

may compensate.

"[I]n order to ascertain whether the parties were 

participating in an economic marital partnership," "a judge must 

consider the factors set forth in G. L. c. 208, § 49 (d) (1)." 

See Duff-Kareores, 474 Mass. at 535. These factors include, but 

are not limited to, economic dependence or interdependence, 

collaborative conduct in furtherance of a shared life, benefits 
12

derived, and representations made or reputations acquired 

regarding the relationship. See G. L. c. 208, § 49 (d) (1) (i)-

(vi). Here, the judge determined that the period from November 

2005 to February 2012 constituted an economic marital 

partnership.

ii. Receipt of alimony from third party. The husband 

argues that, as a matter of law, the wife could not have entered 

into an economic marital partnership with him from 2005 to 2011,

because she was receiving alimony payments from a previous 

marriage during that period. He maintains that the word 

"marital" in the phrase "economic marital partnership" imbues 

the phrase with a requirement of monogamy, and permits either an 

alimony relationship with a former spouse or an economic marital 

partnership with a current partner, but not both. He contends

that to permit otherwise would be to endorse "financial 

infidelity," "financial bigamy," or "financial polyandry."

Our jurisprudence recognizes, however, that the receipt of 

alimony, without more, does not place an individual in an 

economic marital partnership with a former spouse. While an 

economic marital partnership "resembles . . . a legal marriage,"

a court-ordered obligation to pay alimony does not. See DuffKareores, 474 Mass. at 534-535, 537.

"While it often may be the case that there is some measure 

of mutual dependence and benefit enjoyed by formerly 

married parties where one party is paying the other court-
13

ordered alimony, that alone would not convert court-ordered 

payments into an economic marital partnership."

Id. at 537. An economic marital partnership is premised, in 

part, on the parties' conduct "in furtherance of their life 

together" and their "community reputation . . . as a couple." 

See id. at 534, quoting G. L. c. 208, § 49 (d) (1). By 

contrast, "[a] judgment requiring payment of alimony does not 

contemplate a shared life," nor does it create a reputation of a 

romantic pair within the community. See Duff-Kareores, supra at 

537.

There is no indication that, between 2005 and 2011, the 

wife and her former spouse shared a primary residence, presented

themselves to the public as husband and wife, or planned their 

schedules and vacations together. Contrast Duff-Kareores, 474

Mass. at 537, 539 (once-married couple resumed economic marital 

partnership after divorce). The transfer of payments, itself, 

does not create a marriage-like relationship, and it does 

nothing to preclude the recipient from seeking out and entering

into an economic marital partnership.

Indeed, the Legislature expressly contemplated that an 

individual who receives alimony payments may enter a new 

romantic relationship, see G. L. c. 208, § 49 (a), (d), and the 

formation of a new economic marital partnership is not 

prohibited by the statute. Rather, if an alimony recipient 
14

cohabits and forms a "common household"10 with a new partner for 

a period of at least three months, a former spouse's obligation 

to pay alimony may be "suspended, reduced or terminated." See 

G. L. c. 208, § 49 (d). Where an individual who receives 

alimony enters an economic marital partnership, therefore, it is 

the alimony -- not the economic marital partnership -- which may

give way. See id. Cf. G. L. c. 208, § 49 (a) (remarriage 

terminates alimony).

Here, the former spouse's continued payment of alimony did 

not prevent the wife from becoming economically interdependent 

with the husband, nor did it diminish the extent to which the 

new pair functioned as a couple and invested in a shared future 

during the period from November 2005 to February 2012.11 It was 

these mutual actions on which the husband's obligation to pay 

alimony now rests, without regard to the burdens once borne by 

the former spouse.

 

10 The factors delineated in G. L. c. 208, § 49 (d) (1), are 

used to determine both whether two individuals have engaged in a 

"common household" and whether they have entered into an 

"economic marital partnership." See Duff-Kareores v. Kareores, 

474 Mass. 528, 534 (2016).

11 The husband is not disadvantaged by the wife having 

received alimony payments during the period of economic marital 

partnership. If anything, the wife's receipt of alimony helped 

fund the husband and wife's common enterprises, including 

renovating, furnishing, and maintaining a home together.
15

The judge was aware that the wife had received alimony from 

her former spouse, a fact that appears repeatedly throughout his 

findings. In accordance with G. L. c. 208, § 49 (d) (1) (vi), 

the judge was permitted to consider this and "other relevant and 

material factors." Nothing in the record suggests that he 

neglected to do so.

iii. Sufficiency of factual findings. The husband

contends that the evidence is insufficient to support a 

determination that the parties cohabited and entered an economic 

marital partnership. We do not agree.

The judge found that the parties cohabited between October 

2005 and February 2012; during that time, they lived together in 

Shirley and Townsend. As to their economic marital partnership, 

the judge properly considered the factors set forth in G. L. 

c. 208, § 49 (d) (1). With respect to economic interdependence, 

the judge found that the wife had become disabled and relied on 

the husband's health insurance during this period. The wife 

also relied, at least in part, on the husband's salary, as she 

was unable to work. In furtherance of building a life together,

the parties shared in the purchase of a house in 2006, the cost 

of the mortgage, and the work required to perform renovations. 

During the same period, the husband repeatedly represented his 
16

wife to his employer as his "domestic partner."12 Moreover, the 

husband held out the wife's son as his own in a 2011 obituary. 

The judge determined that "[t]he parties acted as a married 

couple in all respects."13

The judge's factual findings, supported by the record, also

support his conclusion that the parties engaged in an economic 

marital partnership from November 2005 to February 2012.14 

Accordingly, the judge did not abuse his discretion in including

the entire seventy-six month period in his calculation of the 

duration of the marriage.

 

12 The husband's employer defined "domestic partners" as 

"two adults of the same or opposite sex who are in an ongoing 

and committed spouse-like relationship. They reside together 

and are jointly responsible for each other's welfare and 

financial obligations."

13 The husband argues, "Functionally, the parties' financial 

transactions were undistinguishable from similar transactions 

engaged in by unrelated roommates, and the parties' romantic 

involvement did nothing to alter their financial arrangements." 

We do not agree. It is the confluence of economic 

interdependence, contemplation of a shared life, and reputation 

or representation as a couple which suggest a marriage-like 

economic marital partnership, pursuant to G. L. c. 208, 

§ 49 (d) (1).

14 To the extent that the judge also made findings that the 

parties engaged in an economic marital partnership from 

August 2001 to February 2004, he nonetheless retained discretion 

not to extend the length of the marriage to include this period. 

See G. L. c. 208, § 48 ("the court may increase the length of 

the marriage"). Because the wife explicitly waives this issue 

on appeal, we need not address it further. See Popp v. Popp, 

477 Mass. 1022, 1023 n.1 (2017) (waiving claim of error in 

judge's decision not to include specific period in length of 

marriage).
17

b. Division of assets. The husband argues further that 

the judge made several errors in dividing the parties' assets:

(i) selecting an improper date of valuation of the marital 

estate; (ii) not properly defining the marital estate; 

(iii) assigning some of the wife's liabilities to the husband;

and (iv) not clarifying the method of distribution of the 

retirement accounts. Evaluating each in turn, we ascertain no 

error.

i. Valuation date. The husband contends that the judge 

erred by valuing the parties' marital assets based upon their 

then most recent financial statements, that were filed at trial

on March 14, 2016, rather than valuing the assets as of June 

2014, when the parties first separated, or upon the issuance of 

temporary orders of support in July 2014.

The determination of the appropriate valuation date is left 

to the discretion of the trial judge. See Savides v. Savides, 

400 Mass. 250, 252-253 (1987) (no abuse of discretion where 

judge used date of separation as valuation date); Moriarty v. 

Stone, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 151, 154 (1996) (no abuse of discretion 

where judge used date of trial as valuation date). See also 

Davidson v. Davidson, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 364, 370 n.9 (1985) 

(determination of date is "best left to a case-by-case 

analysis"). Except where "warranted by the circumstances of a 
18

particular case," however, the valuation date typically is the 

date of trial. See Moriarty, supra.

Only two years passed between the date of separation and 

the date of trial. Contrast Savides, 400 Mass. at 250-253 

(trial took place approximately ten years after separation, and 

value of marital estate had increased significantly due to 

husband's exclusive contributions). This case is not one in 

which either party obtained significant assets following the 

separation, distinct from accounts they had maintained during 

the marriage, such that the inclusion of those assets in the 

valuation would be rendered "contrary to the marital partnership 

concept on which [G. L. c. 208, § 34,] is founded." Contrast

Davidson, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 370-376 (part of trust and 

expectancy under will not subject to property division where it 

was obtained after divorce).15 It was not an abuse of discretion

for the judge to decide upon the date of trial as the date of 

valuation in the circumstances here.

ii. Defining the marital estate. The husband argues that 

the judge did not properly "define the marital estate" because 

he did not indicate which assets were acquired during the 

 

15 To the contrary, the husband argues only that he 

continued to contribute to his retirement account and to pay 

household expenses, including the mortgage -- all of which were 

obligations existing during the period of the marriage or 

ordered by the court as temporary payments during the course of 

the divorce proceedings.
19

marriage, and because his division did not flow rationally from

the parties' contributions to the marital estate.

As to the assets included in the marital estate, a judge is 

not limited to dividing assets acquired during the period of the 

marriage. See G. L. c. 208, § 34 (permitting division of "all 

or any part of the estate of the other"). A judge may divide 

"all property to which a party holds title, however acquired."16 

See Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl, 475 Mass. 105, 110 (2016). 

See also Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. 398, 400-401 (1977) (permitting 

assignment of property "whenever and however acquired"). This 

includes acquisitions made outside the period of the legal 

marriage or a period of marital economic partnership. See, 

e.g., Brower v. Brower, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 216, 218 (2004) 

(dividing assets acquired during period of cohabitation before 

legal marriage); Moriarty, 41 Mass. App. Ct. at 156 (permitting 

division of "the pension, retirement and other benefits accrued 

prior to the marriage"). The assets considered in this case 

included the marital home, financial accounts, vehicles, 

jewelry, retirement accounts, and personal property. As the 

parties "held title" to each, it was not improper for the judge 

 

16 There is no requirement, as the husband would have it, 

that the judge delineate "which assets were acquired during the 

marriage and which were not."
20

to consider any of these assets, regardless of when they were

acquired.

General Laws c. 208, § 34, sets forth the factors which a 

judge must consider in dividing the parties' assets. These 

include

"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 . . . . The court may also 

consider the contribution of each of the parties in the 

acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their 

respective estates and the contribution of each of the 

parties as a homemaker to the family unit."

G. L. c. 208, § 34. Trial judges retain "broad discretion" in 

weighing and balancing the factors described in G. L. c. 208, 

§ 34. See Kittredge v. Kittredge, 441 Mass. 28, 43 (2004). See 

also Adams v. Adams, 459 Mass. 361, 372-373 (2011), S.C., 466 

Mass. 1015 (2013).

In reviewing a trial judge's division of property, we 

conduct a two-step analysis. See Bernier v. Bernier, 449 Mass. 

774, 794 (2007). First, "[w]e review the judge's findings to 

determine whether he [or she] considered all the relevant

factors under [G. L. c. 208, § 34,] and no irrelevant factors." 

See Baccanti v. Morton, 434 Mass. 787, 790 (2001). Second, if 

the judge has done so, we will not reverse a judgment unless it 
21

is "plainly wrong and excessive" (citations omitted). See 

Bernier, supra; Baccanti, supra at 793.

Contrary to the husband's position, "[t]he judge did make 

findings as to these [assets]; he simply did not make the 

findings sought by the husband." See Baccanti, 434 Mass. 

at 791. The judge meticulously defined each of the assets 

within the marital estate, tracking them over the period from 

2001 through 2014. After "fixing the nature and value of the 

property" pursuant to G. L. c. 208, § 34, he explicitly 

considered the requirements of the statute; he took into account 

that the husband "contributed significantly more to the 

acquisition of marital assets," and weighed that against the 

wife's "health problems and lack of employability," as well as 

his determination that the "parties contributed equally to the 

marriage." The judge decided that a division of assets favoring 

the husband, fifty-five percent to forty-five percent, was 

appropriate, but that the marital home should be divided evenly 

in recognition that the parties had "contributed equally" to its 

purchase and maintenance. We cannot say that, having considered 

the appropriate factors, the judge was "plainly wrong and 

excessive" in his distribution of the parties' assets. See 

Bernier, 449 Mass. at 794; Baccanti, supra at 793.

iii. Liabilities. The husband maintains that the judge 

erred in allocating a portion of the wife's "post-separation 
22

consumer debt" to the husband. The husband relies on Rule 

411(a) of the Supplemental Rules of the Probate and Family 

Court, Massachusetts Rules of Court, at 815-816 (LexisNexis 

2018), which establishes an "automatic restraining order" on 

both parties after one party files a complaint for divorce.17 

The rule admonishes that

"[n]either party shall incur any further debts that would 

burden the credit of the other party, including but not 

limited to further borrowing against any credit line 

secured by the marital residence or unreasonably using 

credit cards or cash advances against credit or bank 

cards."

See Rule 411(a)(2) of the Supplemental Rules of the Probate and

Family Court, supra at 816.

Subsequent to the separation, the wife purchased furniture 

on credit for the apartment in which she and her son were 

living. The wife appears to have used her own credit cards for 

 

17 As to the "restraining order," the rule requires:

"Neither party shall sell, transfer, encumber, conceal, 

assign, remove or in any way dispose of any property, real 

or personal, belonging to or acquired by, either party, 

except: (a) as required for reasonable expenses of living; 

(b) in the ordinary and usual course of business; (c) in 

the ordinary and usual course of investing; (d) for payment 

of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in connection with 

the action; (e) written agreement of both parties; or 

(f) by order of the court."

Rule 411(a) of the Supplemental Rules of the Probate and Family 

Court, Massachusetts Rules of Court, at 815 (LexisNexis 2018). 

The use of funds to purchase furniture satisfies the first 

exception, "as required for reasonable expenses of living."
23

the purchases, and there is no indication that the credit cards 

were in the husband's name, or that the debt encumbered the 

marital home. As such, the wife does not appear to have 

incurred "any further debts that would burden the credit of" the 

husband. Id. Moreover, the wife's purchase of furniture was 

not unreasonable. After the separation, the husband retained 

use of the marital home and the furnishings therein; the wife 

and her son moved into an apartment and required furniture of 

their own. The judge was aware of the debt the wife incurred,

and considering the purpose for which the furniture was 

purchased, the judge allocated liabilities such that the wife 

was responsible for fifty-five percent of the debt and the 

husband was responsible for the remainder. There was no error 

in so doing. The "ultimate goal of G. L. c. 208, § 34," is "an 

equitable, rather than an equal, division of property." Adlakha

v. Adlakha, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 860, 864 (2006), quoting Williams, 

431 Mass. at 626.

iv. Retirement accounts. The judge ordered that "[t]he 

parties' retirement assets shall be divided between the parties, 

such that Wife receives [forty-five percent] of the total value 

in the accounts and Husband receives [fifty-five percent]." The 

husband contends that the distribution ordered was impermissibly 

vague with respect to the date of segregation, the effect of 

market gains or losses prior to the date the account is divided, 
24

and the means by which to divide the accounts. He argues that, 

because a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was not 

issued, the division of the retirement accounts could constitute 

"early distribution" that would trigger a tax penalty.

A QDRO is an appropriate method by which to facilitate the 

distribution of child support, alimony, or marital property 

rights. See, e.g., Silverman v. Spiro, 438 Mass. 725, 736 

(2003). The parties concede that a QDRO would resolve any tax 

concerns here. At oral argument, in response to a question 

whether a QDRO from the Probate and Family Court would be the 

appropriate resolution to the tax concerns, counsel for the 

husband responded, "It very easily would be, and I think that's 

really more of a housekeeping matter than anything else." 

Counsel for the wife represented that there "is an unequivocal 

agreement that a QDRO has to be done." Nothing in the judgment 

nisi or anything in this opinion precludes the parties from 

returning to the Probate and Family Court to seek such an order.

As to the husband's other concerns, as discussed, the 

valuation date for the parties' assets -- including the 

retirement accounts -- was set as March 14, 2016, the second day

of trial. The only open question is how to account for fair 

market adjustments. The husband argues that the judge neglected 

to "specify whether the wife's portion would be subject to 

market gains or losses" after the valuation date. This judgment 
25

does not preclude the parties from returning to the Probate and 

Family Court to pursue a QDRO, or from seeking clarification on 

the issue of how to account for market adjustments.18

Judgment affirmed.

 

18 The wife seeks attorney's fees and double costs, on the 

ground that the husband's arguments are frivolous. "We are 

hesitant to deem an appeal frivolous and grant sanctions except 

in egregious cases." Symmons v. O'Keeffe, 419 Mass. 288, 303

(1995). Because we do not determine that the law was 

sufficiently well settled, such that "there [could] be no 

reasonable expectation of a reversal," we decline to allow the 

wife's request (citation omitted). See id.