deCastro v. deCastro – Divorce – Division of Marital Property
deCastro v. deCastro, 415 Mass. 787, 616 N.E.2d 52 (1993).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This divorce case involved an appeal from a division of marital assets.
FACTS: Mr. and Ms. deCastro were married in 1963. The wife was a school teacher and the Husband worked for Digital Equipment Corporation. In 1968, H with four others formed a new company called Data General Corporation and contributed $15,000 from a joint savings account to help start the company.
The couple had three children and W left her job to care for the children and H. Data General was successful. H became involved with another woman and moved out of the marital home in 1980, but H still visited frequently and the couple continued to have sexual relations. W accepted employment as a librarian and contributed her entire salary to support herself and the children and H continued to pay the expenses of the marital home.
H owned over 315,000 shares of Data General when the parties separated and over 847,000 shares by 1991. The judge determined that W was 90% responsible for the raising of the children and ordered the shares of Data General split between the parties. The parties appealed.
ISSUE: Is a judge compelled to consider a husband’s contributions to the computer industry in a division of marital assets?
RULE OF LAW: No. A judge is not compelled to consider a husband’s contributions to the computer industry in a division of marital assets.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The findings the judge made support the conclusion that he considered all of the necessary factors. The judge was not compelled to consider the husband’s contributions to the computer industry and we conclude that the judge’s findings with regard to contribution to the marital estate were more than adequate. The judge noted in his findings that in the first years of marriage, both of the deCastros worked and managed to save $15,000 which H then invested in Data General. The judge found that after 1967, H made all the financial contribution to the family until 1980 when W reentered the work force and contributed her earnings to the maintenance of herself and the children.
The judge found the marriage to be a partnership in which the husband accumulated the marital assets and the wife managed the raising of the children. Equity and justice demand that both financial and non-financial contributions be taken into account in the distribution of marital assets and estate. H contends that the judge’s decision failed to find that H’s genius alone was responsible for the results obtained. H’s argument relies on the discarded notion that the wage earner is entitled to most if not all of the benefits of the paid work and is untenable.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.