Fields and Dennis LLP

781-489-6776

Inheritance

Home / What Would the Court Do? / Inheritance

Late in Marriage Inheritance.  In the same case as above, the wife sought to overturn the Probate Court finding that allowed the husband to keep an inheritance he received from his mother in November 2002.  The Appeals Court affirmed the decision which turned on the finding that the marital partnership dissolved prior to the actual separation – in particular, when marriage counseling ended and the wife consulted with divorce attorneys in December 2000.  Alexander v. Alexander, 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1118 (September 30, 2008) (Unpublished)
 
Husband Receives No Part of Wife’s $12,000,000 Inheritance.  The Appeals Court upheld a Probate judgment in which the judge did not award husband any part of the wife’s $12,000,000 inherited interest in various trusts.  The decision does not indicate the precise extent of the marital estate but infers that the wife was left with substantially greater assets than the husband.  The parties lived a modest, middle-class lifestyle, not using the inherited assets.  Further, since neither party knew the size of the Wife’s inheritance, the Probate judge assumed that they did not rely on “the eventual receipt of those monies to support their lifestyle.”  Also relevant: the judge found the husband’s contribution to the marital estate limited; that the parties’ maintained separate assets; filed separate tax returns; used their own assets without input from the other.  Merrill v. Johnson, 82 Mass.App.Ct. 1113 (September 19, 2012) (Unpublished)
 
Value of Inherited Nantucket Home Divided Equally.  The Appeals Court upheld a Probate and Family Court judgment that divided equally between parties the value of the husband’s interest in a Nanucket home. In upholding the trial court’s wide discretion, the appellate court was impressed by several factors. The island home had been gifted to the husband in trust by his family halfway through a presumably long-term marriage. The trust did not “limit the property to the husband (or … exclude it from assets available for division upon divorce).” Finally, the family had “use and enjoyment of the property” during the marriage. The Appeals Court also dismissed the husband’s argument that his minority interest in the home should be discounted for its lack of marketability. Citing Bernier v. Bernier, 449 Mass. 774 (2007), since the property was not currently intended for sale, such a discount would be inappropriate. Gribbell v. Gribbell, 2012 Mass.App.Unpub. LEXIS 104 (February 1, 2012) (Unpublished)
 
Last-Minute Inheritance Still Counts.  In a case involving really bad timing, the Appeals Court found that the Probate and Family Court properly considered the husband’s substantial inheritance that vested after the final day of trial but prior to the judgment of divorce nisi.  The Husband argued that the marital estate should be identified at the close of trial.  The Wife argued that the marital estate should be identified at the date of divorce.  In upholding the lower court judgment, the Appeals Court noted the wide judicial discretion in the area of property division.  Nicholas v. Nicholas, 2010 Mass App. Unpub. LEXIS 593 (May 28, 2010) (Unpublished)