## Facts

- The parties married in 1985 and had three children (born 1986, 1988, and 1992).
- The husband was a tenured MIT physics professor who won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics; his 2001 wages were about $179,161 and he was in excellent health.
- The wife worked part-time as a teacher’s aide (about $7,318 in 2001); she was in good physical health but had serious depression and a recent hospitalization after a suicide attempt.
- The Probate and Family Court entered a divorce judgment awarding the wife roughly 62% of marital assets and the husband about 38%, relying heavily on the husband’s heightened future earning capacity associated with the Nobel Prize.
- The trial judge credited the husband with $83,000 as the remaining marital share of Nobel Prize proceeds after taxes and a substantial gift to his mentor.
- The judgment ordered the husband to pay the college expenses of all three children; at trial, the oldest was a high school junior and the younger two were about 13 and 10.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge abused discretion under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34 by giving substantial weight to the husband’s Nobel-associated future earning capacity when dividing marital property.
2. Whether it was clearly erroneous to treat $83,000 in Nobel Prize proceeds as a marital asset despite the husband’s asserted commitment to give half the prize money to his mentor.
3. Whether ordering the husband to pay college expenses for all three children was proper, or premature as to the two younger children.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the overall property division as a proper exercise of discretion under § 34.
- The Appeals Court upheld the finding that $83,000 in Nobel Prize proceeds was properly credited to the husband as a marital asset and was not clearly erroneous.
- The Appeals Court affirmed the order requiring payment of imminent college expenses for the oldest child.
- The Appeals Court vacated/modified the provisions requiring payment of future college expenses for the two younger children as premature.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34, a judge has broad discretion to weigh statutory factors in dividing marital property and may assign greater weight to one factor, including a spouse’s opportunity for future acquisition of income and assets.
- Extraordinary professional recognition that materially increases likely future earning capacity may be considered in allocating existing marital assets.
- Prize proceeds received during the marriage may be treated as marital property/income for § 34 purposes; a spouse’s voluntary promise or intended gift to a third party does not, without more, bar inclusion where the trial judge’s findings on the amount and treatment of the proceeds are supported.
- Orders allocating postminority educational expenses must be grounded in reasonably foreseeable circumstances; imposing long-range college-expense obligations for young children may be premature when future conditions are too uncertain.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court largely upheld the divorce judgment, ruling that the trial judge permissibly relied on the husband’s Nobel-related future earning capacity to justify an unequal property split and properly treated remaining prize proceeds as marital, but it limited the college-expense order to the child whose college costs were imminent and set aside the order as to the younger children.


Ketterle v. Ketterle, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 758 (2004)