Heard: October 17, 2016.
and Separation, Alimony.
for divorce filed in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and
Family Court Department on June 20, 2012.
case was heard by John D. Casey, J.
M. Epstein for the husband.
M. Kane (Joan E. Kolligian also present) for the wife.
Present: Wolohojian, Carhart, & Shin, JJ.
address in this case whether the calculation of an employee
spouse's alimony obligation may include income received
from unvested employee stock options that were not
subject to equitable division after application of the
"time rule" set out in Baccanti v. Morton,
434 Mass. 787 (2001) . The trial judge concluded that it
would not constitute double counting if such income were
included in determining the husband's alimony obligation
to the wife, and the husband appeals. He also appeals the
judge's determination of the date on which the unvested
options should be valued under the time rule. Discerning no
error in the judge's resolution of either question, we
twenty years of marriage, the parties separated and began
living apart in April of 2012. The husband filed a complaint
for divorce later that year. When attempts at reconciliation
failed, the wife filed a counterclaim for divorce in July of
August 19, 2014, the parties entered into a separation
agreement, which resolved all issues in the case except the
two identified above. The same day, the trial judge entered a
judgment of divorce nisi approving and incorporating the
separation agreement. As to the two contested issues, the
parties filed a stipulation agreeing to submit them to the
judge for determination solely "on representation of
judge held a nonevidentiary hearing on the contested issues
later that day. He then entered a supplemental judgment of
divorce nisi dated October 1, 2014, concluding that the
alimony provisions of the separation agreement should be
applied to income the husband realizes from unvested stock
options that were not subject to the equitable division of
marital assets, and that the unvested options should be
valued on a date closest in time to entry of the original
divorce judgment. This appeal followed.