Tuckman v. Tuckman

61 A.3d 449 (2013)

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 and W were married on November 3, 1990. They have two children, a son, born in 1994, and a daughter, born in 1996. In 2005 and 2006, W had an income of $530,000 and $945,000, respectively. W's assets included a one-third stake in BJK Partners (BJK), an investment partnership with her two older brothers, and a one-third ownership interest in Offices Limited, Inc., a family office furniture business. W's share of BJK was valued at approximately $2.7 million, while her share of Offices Limited, Inc., was valued at $1.25 million. W also earned well over $2 million through her BJK investment partnership between 1996 and 2007. In 2006 and 2007, H, who worked in the commodities division at Merrill Lynch, each year earned a base compensation of $200,000 with a bonus of $1.5 million. In 2008, H was set to begin employment at Citicorp, where he was to receive base pay along with a bonus of $1.25 million in 2009 and 2010. H brought this dissolution action. The court issued the following financial orders: (1) no periodic alimony to either party; (2) $250 per week in support of each child to W; (3) property of the parties to be divided with 67 percent going to W and 33 percent to H, with the exception of [one particular] account, which went to W; (4) possession of the marital home to W and one half of its equity, or $528,183, to be paid to H within sixty days; (5) denial of W's request for attorney's fees; and (6) additional orders relating to personal property and medical insurance and expenses. W appealed to the Appellate Court claiming, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly awarding her an insufficient amount of child support. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion because 'the [trial] court's order failed to follow the guideline's tables, and, more importantly, its memorandum of decision failed to make any reference to the guidelines.' The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court as to the financial orders and ordered a new trial. H appealed.