Zaleski v. Zaleski

13 N.E.3d 967 (2014)

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

W filed a complaint for divorce from H on the ground of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The parties were married on October 15, 1994. W was forty-five years old, and H was forty-eight years old. They have two children, both of whom attend private schools. The marriage lasted sixteen years. Both parties enjoyed good health, as did their children. During most of the marriage, both parties were employed full time outside the home and contributed their earnings to the marital enterprise. Both parties contributed to the marital maintenance. H worked as a real estate appraiser, and then as an analyst and executive in real estate investment firms. H's income was $302,442 in 2004. It increased annually until it reached $1,024,555 in 2008, and was in excess of $900,000 in 2009 and 2010. H's income has consisted of base salary in the amount of approximately $400,000 and bonuses that are paid annually in the year after they are earned. H's income during the marriage was always greater than that of W. H was found to be self-supporting and fully employed commensurate with his training, skills, and experience. W holds a bachelor of science degree in business; beginning early in the marriage, she was employed as a sales representative and, starting in 1990, as a pharmaceutical sales representative for several companies. In 2003, the wife was promoted to the position of sales district manager, a job from which she was terminated in 2007. Her base salary was in the range of $127,000 to $130,000 annually, with a bonus of up to $40,000; she also had use of the company car. The judge found W was not presently self-supporting but had the ability and the desire to work. The judge found that W had not used her best efforts to secure employment. The judge found that W had skills that were transferable across many fields beyond pharmaceutical and medical device sales. H and W lived an upper-middle-class lifestyle during the marriage. They dined out, vacationed, joined a yacht club,” and owned boats, luxury vehicles, and a second home, which the parties sold by agreement during the litigation. The children attended private schools. H held membership in a fish and game club, while W was a member of a tennis club. H and W spent beyond their means. Their only assets at the time of trial consisted of the equity in their home and their retirement accounts. The judge awarded W rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $11,667 per month for five years; this amount is thirty-five percent of the husband's annual base salary of $400,000. The judge ordered that neither was to pay child support “at this time.” H was to be solely responsible for the children's private school tuition and expenses, and that the parties shall share equally the cost of the children's extracurricular and enrichment activities and their uninsured medical and dental costs. W appealed disputing the award of alimony in that she seeks general alimony.