Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H won the Nobel Prize for Physics for his work on Bose-Einstein condensates. H and W were married on September 20, 1985, in Germany. They had three children. H was a tenured full professor at MIT, whose total wages from MIT were $ 179,160.98 in 2001. His health was also excellent. W worked part-time as a teacher's aide earning $ 7,317.98 in 2001. W's mental health was 'fragile.' In August 2001, she was committed for a suicide attempt and severe depression. She continued to be maintained on three kinds of antidepressants. The judge found: H's brilliance and hard work made the family financially secure. 'W's total commitment to child rearing and tending to the home permitted H to pursue his career,' which involved 'very long hours at his laboratory.' W also came to the United States from Germany to enhance H's career despite her 'lack of fluency in English and . . . familiarity with . . . American culture.' The judge awarded the marital home to W, and the retirement/pension funds and the after-tax Nobel Prize proceeds to the H. The judge also permitted the husband to give away one-half of his Nobel Prize money to his mentor as she was 'fully persuaded that H's motivation is admirable and honorable, and in . . . keeping with the lofty, humanitarian, and generous values embodied by the rich history and tradition of the Nobel Prize.' W was not required to refinance the marital home to provide him with cash that would permit him to take, as he argued, 'his half.' She also rejected his contention that he was 'cash-poor.' W got either sixty-eight percent or sixty-two percent of the assets. The judge relied 'heavily' upon the statutory factor of the 'ability of the parties to acquire future income and assets.' H's ability was excellent, as he retains a retirement asset in which his employer 'matches his future contributions dollar for dollar, and his 'receipt of the Nobel prize opens wide new horizons for his income potential.' W's future prospects were found to be 'paltry and stagnant by comparison.' W had 'no likelihood of acquiring significant future assets or increasing her earned income.'
H objected to the 'disproportionate' division of marital assets.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co