The Appeals Court heard argument in Foreman v. Foreman (2024‑00930) about the probate judge’s choice of remedy and valuation date after she found a material breach of an antenuptial agreement.

Appellant counsel Matthew Barak argued that, under the Austin footnote and subsequent case law, the judge had equitable power to choose a later valuation date tied to the actual division of assets rather than the contract’s fixed date. Barak said the record did not explain why the judge selected the contract date and why she adopted what the appellant characterizes as a minimal monetary award labeled as specific performance rather than another equitable remedy; he estimated the date choice potentially reduced the wife's award by roughly $215,000 (after various expert valuations) and asked for remand or an explanatory opinion.

Counsel for the respondent, Susan Stenger, said the parties’ contract expressly specified specific performance and the valuation date; once the judge concluded that specific performance was the proper remedy, she was obliged to enforce the contract’s terms. Stenger emphasized judge’s consideration of other equitable factors (home renovations, loan repayments, furnishings, extended occupancy rights) and argued the judgment accounted for the full context.

The panel pressed both counsel on the limits of equitable discretion, the probative weight of competing expert valuations, and whether a clarifying opinion or remand would be appropriate. The court took the arguments under advisement.