The Appeals Court heard argument in an appeal from a divorce judgment in which the appellant (KR) argued the trial court erred by denying alimony, miscalculating the husband’s income, and undervaluing the marital estate.
Appellant counsel Katie Mansfield told the panel the trial court “blurred the distinction between alimony and property division,” leaving KR significantly worse off and depriving her of an appropriate maintenance award. Mansfield argued the judge used an unrealistically low imputed wage when estimating the husband’s income and failed to account for personal use of business funds and unexplained cash deposits that should have been imputed as income.
Mansfield told the court the parties’ income gap justified an alimony award (counsel’s arithmetic produced a roughly $324-per-week alimony figure versus about $136 per week absorbed by property division under the court’s result) and that the court failed to consider mandatory statutory factors, including contributions as homemaker and health and employability limits that constrain the wife’s earning capacity.
The panel asked questions about the record evidence and the judge’s discretion in valuing the business and weighing credibility. Counsel for the appellee and the trial court’s findings were discussed at length; the court took the matter under advisement following argument.