## Facts

- Jean M. deCastro (wife) and Edson D. deCastro (husband) married in 1963 and initially pooled earnings and savings.
- After their first child was born in 1967, the wife left paid employment and primarily managed the household and raised three children (born 1967, 1970, 1972).
- In 1968, the husband co-founded Data General Corporation and used $15,000 from the parties’ joint savings to capitalize the business.
- Data General became highly successful; during the marriage the parties acquired significant assets and lived an affluent lifestyle.
- In 1980, the husband left the marital home due to an affair; the probate judge found continuing contact and intermittent marital relations for several years thereafter.
- Post-separation, the wife returned to work and applied her earnings to family support; the husband continued paying major household and education expenses.
- In the divorce, the principal disputed asset was the husband’s substantial Data General stock holdings.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate judge abused discretion under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34 by awarding the wife 50% of the husband’s Data General stock.
2. Whether the husband’s appeal was frivolous, warranting damages and attorney’s fees, and whether the stay of the stock-transfer order caused compensable harm.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the divorce judgment, including the award of 50% of the Data General stock to the wife.
- The court held the property division was within the probate judge’s broad discretion under § 34 and was supported by detailed findings.
- The court denied the wife’s request for damages and attorney’s fees based on a claim of frivolous appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34, marital property division is equitable and depends on a fact-specific weighing of statutory factors, including contributions of each spouse, the length of marriage, and future opportunities for income and capital.
- A judge may treat nonfinancial contributions (homemaking, childrearing, and support of the other spouse’s career) as equal in value to financial and professional contributions when allocating marital assets.
- Appellate review of § 34 property divisions is deferential; a division will be upheld absent legal error or a decision that is plainly wrong and excessive.
- A losing position on appeal does not, by itself, establish frivolousness sufficient to justify appellate sanctions or fee-shifting.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an equal division of stock derived from a business formed during the marriage with joint funds, concluding that the probate judge permissibly valued the wife’s homemaking and parenting contributions on par with the husband’s entrepreneurial work and rejected sanctions because the appeal was not frivolous.


deCastro v. deCastro, 616 N.E.2d 52 (Mass. 1993)