Lawyers Weekly June 22, 2020 Issue
Where a divorced defendant was awarded a portion of a workers' compensation settlement received by the plaintiff husband, there was no error, as the settlement qualifies as a divisible marital asset under G.L.c. 208, S34.
"The former husband appeals from a judgment of divorce nisi under G.L.c. 208, S1B. He argues that the judge erred by treating his workers' compensatio settlement as a divisible marital asset, and that awarding the former wife a portion of that settlement was inequitable. He also claims that it was improper for the judge to require him to maintain a life insurance policy for his child support obligation. ...
"First, we agree with the judge that under these circumstances the workers' compensation settlement qualifies as marital property. Here, the accident occurred during the marriage and the s"ettlement was received before the judgment of divorce nisi became final. A workers' compensation claim, like a pending personal injury claim, is an 'unliquidated claim for money damages,' Hanify v. Hanify, 403 Mass. 184, 187 (1988), and thus falls within the divorce court's broad power to divide marital property. ...All personal property, tangible and intangible, in which a spouse acquires an interest is includable as property to be divided by the court. We discern no reason why a workers' compensation settlement would be excluded from that definition. ...
"Second, we see no abuse of discretion in the judge's allocation of the worker's compensation settlement to the wife. ...Here, the judge's findings were thoughtful and well-reasoned. The $50,000 award to the wife was rationally balances against her need to buy out the husband's $105,000 interest i nthe marital home. There is ample evience that the judge considered the equities in light of the parties' equal contributions to the marriage, their ages, health, and other statutory considerations. ...
"Finally, the husband challenges that portion of the judgment requiring him to secure his chid support obligation with a life insurance policy, arguing that the order was duplicative in light of the SSDI benefit. Again, we see no abuse of discretion. A judge does have the authority to a party in a divorce to secure a life insurance policy for the benefit of a child. ...and at the time of the trial the husband's SSDI application had yet to be approved. If the husband wishes to modify his obligation to carry life insurance in light of events occurring after the judgment issued, his recourse lies in the trial court."
