Schechter v. Schechter

37 N.E.3d 632 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H is a Ukrainian immigrant whose family initially lived in Israel and then moved to Boston. Karina (W) emigrated from Uzbekistan and eventually moved to Boston in 1999 at age twenty to pursue educational opportunities. H graduated from Brandeis University and had early success in a small business and as a computer consultant. H and W began dating in the summer of 2001 while they were both living in New York City. They both relocated to Boston, where W began her final year of college while continuing to work as a dental hygienist. H became involved in the residential real estate business and again met with success. H's family did not support the relationship. In December 2001, W was pregnant. H proposed marriage and W accepted. H's family did not respond well to the engagement and urged him to obtain a prenuptial agreement. W experienced a miscarriage. The couple agreed to conceive another child. W was pregnant again in May of 2002. The couple decided it was best for the mother not to work and to focus on studying for her DAT Dental Admission Test). H continually criticized the mother for avoiding work, said she was worthless and did little to assist her with household chores. The parties signed a prenuptial agreement. H had real estate assets estimated to be worth over seven million dollars. They were married on December 22, 2002. H's emotional abuse was constant and continued during their marriage. W gave birth in February of 2003. During this time, W chose to pursue a degree as a dentist. By April of 2008, the stock market had suffered a serious downturn and H had a breakdown, becoming extremely anxious over his real estate business. He was hospitalized and constructively incapacitated. By September of 2008, W returned to school. W started work as a dentist and received forty percent commission. On May 30, 2009, H and W separated. W and child then went to visit a friend. As W was leaving to return home, she found that her car was being towed and saw H emerge from the tow truck's passenger seat. While at the family home waiting for W, H gathered up several pairs of her shoes, some boots, and a purse and put them in the oven. He turned the oven on and left. W filed a complaint for divorce. W also sought protection from abuse. The judge cited an instance in which H threatened, “I'm coming with an ax to chop you up,” after W would not agree to let the child have a sleepover. A visitation supervisor testified that H pulled up behind W's car, “revved” his engine, swerved his car back and forth, then accelerated around her car, completely crossing the double line in the street, and raced away. H transferred a significant interest in his business into his parents' names. H claimed his income was $580 per week, which the judge found was a “completely unreliable” estimation. The guardian ad litem (GAL) detailed his observations and interactions with family members. The GAL states that H dominates both W and the child with his words and actions. W allows [the child] to be himself and have his own thoughts and feelings and to express them without fear or reservation. The GAL pointed out that there was extensive “mudslinging” by H against W, while W focused only on trying to do what is best for the child. W was granted sole custody, and H was prohibited from visitation for one year. H appealed.