Source: http://fathersunite.org/Asset%20Division%20and%20Prenuptials/prenuptial_and_antenuptial_agreements.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:56:41+00:00

Document:
Summary: Judge uses much higher income than current (due to stock market bubble) to determine alimony leaving the father with potentially a $200,000 annual deficit by forcing him to pay alimony based on an income more than double his current income.
http://www.fathersunite.org/prenuptial_and_antenuptial_agreements.htm. This tampering with the agreement was overturned.
It is about judges abusing their authority and changing the terms of an antinuptial agreements (maybe any agreements?) to their liking.
Jay spent a fortune getting this win and I think it is a precedent that can be used in many cases, not just prenup and antenup but because it may limit a judge's discretion and ability to select any income he/she desires as does Flaherty v. Flaherty to tilt the playing field towards women.
This calculation was fairly arbitrary and effectively maximized by the judge based on income earned during the stock market bubble every knows existed (and strong bias against the man it would seem). This put poor Jay in the position of being required to pay 21% of $1,000,000 + child support = 46% of the phantom gross income + taxes of 45% -- potentially 91% of his actual income to his wife who was already earning $80,000 on her own.
This took a person with about a $430,000 income and left him with nothing to live on while the wife makes $80,000 working part-time + $90,000 from him in alimony alone + child support!!!!!!!! For an income in excess of $200,000 while the father is driven into the poor house eating up his assets.
Thankfully the higher court had some sense and reversed this stupidity, though just left it to the same idiot, biased judge (a major flaw in the system to kick back to original judge it seems) who calculated the income incorrectly to mediate the formula for this.
On appeal, the husband argues that as the agreement was valid and enforceable, the judge was obligated to enforce its terms as written. Therefore, the creation of a fixed alimony payment based on an average of the husband's gross income was effectively a modification of the alimony provision, and in error. We agree.
below. Click on the link, then click on "Opinions" under appeals court. Then click on my case..it is about 5 pages long.
So you have an ante-nuptial (pre-marital contract and ante-nuptial mean the same thing).
Hey, just like child support, the wife argued husband lied about his income and would continue to lie. Pursuant to the agreement, alimony was to be determined by the number of years of the marriage, multiplied by the income of the husband. So what's a court to do that can never believe a father? The trial court ruled that father was never to be believed, either now or in the future.
JAY S. KORFF vs. JILL R. KORFF (and a companion case n1 ).
n1 Jill R. Korff vs. Jay S. Korff.
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Middlesex. Complaints for divorce filed in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on February 28 and December 26, 2002. The cases were heard by Spencer M.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff husband appealed a judgment by the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department (Massachusetts) that granted alimony to defendant wife; the husband claimed, inter alia, that the trial court erred in altering the alimony provisions of the parties' antenuptial agreement.
OVERVIEW: The parties' antenuptial agreement provided, in part, that in case of divorce, alimony would be determined annually based upon the husband's gross income multiplied by a percentage that was determined by the length of the marriage. Rather than adhere to that provision, however, the trial court considered Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34 and proceeded to modify the agreement based upon a finding that the husband lacked financial credibility. Therefore, the trial court ordered a fixed annual amount of alimony based on the average over the last five years of the husband's gross income. The appellate court found that the trial court anticipated ongoing, future, annual breaches by the husband and instituted preventive measures by fixing a set amount of alimony to be paid over the life of the agreement, in direct conflict with its clear language that alimony was to be determined annually. Although understandable, the solution was, nonetheless, legally impermissible.
That part of the judgment that pertained to alimony was vacated, and the matter was remanded for a determination of the appropriate alimony for the period in question.
In a divorce context, the factors of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34, are inapplicable considerations in determining either the validity of an antenuptial contract, or in the interpretation of a valid antenuptial contract. THIS IS SLIGHTLY BIG, BECAUSE PRIOR CASE LAW SUGGESTED THAT IF OUTCOME UNDER CONTRACT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM SECTION 34 FACTORS, IT MAY NOT BE VALID CONTRACT.
MATHEMATICAL PRECISION NOT REQUIRED: An antenuptial agreement need not approximate an alimony award that a judge would be required to make under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34. Judged by those statutory requirements, the parties' right to settle their assets as they wish would be meaningless.
HOW IS CHILD SUPPORT DETERMINED: Child support is controlled by Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 28, and the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines.
NOW DUAL INQUIRY: In determining the validity of an antenuptial agreement, a judge must undertake a dual-pronged inquiry.
(1) First, he must establish whether the agreement was fair and reasonable, at the time of execution.
(2) Next, taking a "second look," the judge must inquire whether the agreement, at the time of the divorce, is "conscionable."
OK, SO WHAT IS UNCONSIONABLE?: Under the conscionability standard, a judge may not relieve the parties from the provisions of a valid antenuptial agreement unless, due to circumstances occurring during the course of the marriage, enforcement of the agreement would leave the contesting spouse without sufficient property, maintenance, or appropriate employment to support herself.
Jay S. KORFF vs. Jill R. KORFF (and a companion case [FN1]).
April 15, 2005. - July 22, 2005.
Divorce and Separation, Alimony. Contract, Antenuptial agreement.
Complaints for divorce filed in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on February 28 and December 26, 2002.
The cases were heard by Spencer M. Kagan, J.
Elizabeth A. Zeldin (Suzanne T. Mancuso with her) for Jay S. Korff.
Nancy A. Freed (Peter A. Kuperstein with her) for Jill R. Korff.
Facts. The parties were married on March 29, 1992, two days after signing an antenuptial agreement (agreement), which provided, in part, that in case of divorce, alimony was to be determined annually, based upon the husband's gross income multiplied by a percentage that was determined by the length of the marriage. If, for example, the marriage lasted from sixty-one through 120 months, the wife would be entitled to sixteen percent of the husband's gross income; if it lasted from 121 through 180 months, the percentage would rise to twenty-one percent. The agreement provided that the end of the marriage would be "[u]pon the filing of a Complaint for Divorce."
Despite some mild protestations by the wife, the validity of the agreement was never really at issue, and the judge, after hearing some evidence on the subject, quickly turned to the question of alimony. [FN5] The husband was a financial advisor at Morgan Stanley and his income, based primarily on commission and deferred production bonuses, varied substantially from year to year. [FN6] His college-educated wife worked part-time in magazine advertising sales, earning, on a commission basis, $97,959 in 2003 and $38,252 in 2002.
As explained above, the agreement provided that alimony was to be based upon a yearly percentage of the husband's gross income. [FN7] Rather than adhere to this provision in the contract, however, the judge proceeded to modify it based upon his finding that the husband "has no financial credibility."
Discussion. As the validity of the agreement is not an issue before us, we need not discuss it at length. Suffice it to say that in determining the validity of an antenuptial agreement, the judge must undertake a dual-pronged inquiry. First, he must establish whether the agreement was " 'fair and reasonable,' at the time of execution." DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 30 (2002), quoting from Rosenberg v. Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666, 672 (1979). Next, taking a "second look," the judge must inquire whether the agreement, at the time of the divorce, is "conscionable." DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, supra at 34, 38. Under the conscionability standard, "a judge may not relieve the parties from the provisions of a valid [antenuptial] agreement unless, due to circumstances occurring during the course of the marriage, enforcement of the agreement would leave the contesting spouse 'without sufficient property, maintenance, or appropriate employment to support herself.' " Id. at 37, quoting from 1 Clark, Jr., Domestic Relations in the United States § 1.9 (2d ed.1987).
In the instant matter, the judge found the agreement to be valid and enforceable not only at the time of execution, but also at the time of the divorce. Neither party contests this holding, nor do we find it to be in error. [FN12] Notwithstanding this conclusion, however, the judge modified the alimony provision based on his finding that the husband lacked financial credibility. Thus, anticipating ongoing, future, annual breaches by the husband, the judge instituted preventive measures by fixing a set amount of alimony to be paid over the life of the agreement, in direct conflict with its clear language that alimony was to be determined annually. Although, based on the record, the judge's displeasure with the husband's conduct is understandable (e.g., his treatment of Jill, including subjecting her to vile name-calling and physical force, his failure to disclose assets in his financial statements, and his covert filing and failure to serve his complaint for divorce), the solution was, nonetheless, legally impermissible.
The agreement called for alimony to be adjusted on an annual basis, the wife receiving twenty-one percent of the husband's gross income, as defined in the agreement. While the agreement does not provide a formal mechanism for the parties to agree upon the calculation of gross annual income [FN13] and alimony readjustment, the parties would be wise, in the future, to arrange one. While we are remanding this matter for a determination of the husband's alimony obligation for the year in question, in the future that figure will have to be determined anew on an annual basis. If the parties cannot agree as to how that figure is to be calculated, or if the wife is dissatisfied with the method employed by the husband, she is free to return to court for an accounting, a legal determination of the amount owed, or a complaint for contempt or breach of contract, including a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. See, e.g., DeCristofaro v. DeCristofaro, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 231, 234-237 (1987); Larson v. Larson, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 106, 109-110 (1994). A judge would be free, among other options, to appoint a master under Mass.R.Dom.Rel.P. 53 (1997), and/or to assess attorney's fees and costs if deemed appropriate, as allowed by article IV(B)(4) of the agreement.
Conclusion. So much of the judgment of divorce as pertains to alimony is vacated. The matter is remanded for a determination, consistent with this opinion, of the appropriate alimony for the period in question. [FN14] Whether to reopen the evidence is within the judge's discretion. [FN15] The wife's request for appellate counsel fees is denied. Although we vacate the order for support, the present terms are to remain in effect temporarily pending new orders by the Probate Court judge.
FN1. Jill R. Korff vs. Jay S. Korff.
FN2. The husband also claims that the award of attorney's fees to the wife was error. We disagree and affirm that aspect of the judgment. See G.L. c. 208, §§ 17, 38; DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 38-39 (2002).
FN3. The husband served the wife with his divorce complaint on June 19, 2003, two days after the wife served the husband with a motion to dismiss his divorce complaint.
FN4. The judge found that the "Husband did not present sufficient or credible evidence of any nature as to why he did not serve the Wife a Domestic Relations Summons, within 90 days of February 28, 2002, as required under Massachusetts law." The husband also admitted that he filed the complaint in February, 2002, to "preserve the percentage of assets that would be awarded to the Wife under the Agreement." The husband is not appealing this finding. Indeed, in his prayer for relief he asks us to "order Jay to pay to Jill a sum equal to 21% of Jay's gross income."
interpretation of a valid antenuptial contract. See, e.g., DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. at 31 ("[A]n antenuptial agreement need not approximate an alimony award ... a judge would be required to make under G.L. c. 208, § 34. Judged by those statutory requirements, the parties' right to settle their assets as they wish would be meaningless"). Furthermore, child support is controlled by G.L. c. 208, § 28, and the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines.
FN6. He earned, in 1998, $1,346,909.51; in 1999, $903,652.91; in 2000, $1,590,450.19; in 2001, $1,426,528.23; in 2002, $547,618.10; and in 2003, through October 31, $430,028.98.
FN7. Gross income was defined as "all income earned in a given year whether from declared or deferred compensation, excluding deferred compensation earned in a prior year but elected to be taken in the current year, minus any child support paid by [the husband]."
"intentionally, either voluntarily directly or indirectly reduced his income to reduce his exposure to the proper amount of alimony and child support." There is scant direct evidence on this point. Indeed, the only evidence appears to be to the contrary, i.e., that he lost a major account and the stock market declined.
FN9. That figure excluded the husband's production bonus, which the judge considered "deferred compensation" under the agreement. This was not raised as an issue on appeal.
FN10. Under the agreement, the alimony obligation would terminate upon (1) the husband's death; (2) the wife's death; (3) the wife's remarriage; or (4) after a period of time equal to the length of the marriage--in this case, 129 months (10 years, 9 months).
FN11. The judge also ordered, in accordance with the agreement, arbitration on the division of assets, as well as child support. Neither issue is contested here.
her with sufficient support under the parameters of DeMatteo.
FN13. This is not a case of self-employment with a possibility of hiding assets. The husband here is employed by Morgan Stanley, and his income and benefits can be, it appears, readily ascertainable. The more troublesome area is when a husband has the ability to generate income but does not. See generally Schuler v. Schuler, 382 Mass. 366, 373-374 (1981); Bassette v. Bartolucci, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 732, 735-736 (1995); Flaherty v. Flaherty, 40 Mass.App.Ct. 289, 291 (1996). Whatever remedies that might be fashioned in such a case do not include the rewriting of a valid antenuptial agreement.
FN14. In light of our holding, we do not reach the husband's claims of error as to the judge's factual findings. Virtually all of the factual findings at issue relate to the improper modification of the agreement.
FN15. The husband was not allowed to call his supervisor as a witness, apparently due to late notice to the wife that he would be testifying. It appears that if the evidence were reopened, the supervisor would be able to shed light in the area of the husband's earnings. See note 8.

References: v. 
 § 34
 § 34
 § 34
 § 28
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 34
 § 28
 v. 
 v. 
 v.