## Facts

- Carolyn and Stephen Zaleski were married for about sixteen years and had two minor children.
- Both spouses were highly educated and worked full-time for much of the marriage.
- The husband earned roughly $400,000 annually, including bonus compensation; the wife previously earned about $170,000 annually but lost her job in 2008.
- The wife filed for divorce alleging irretrievable breakdown.
- After trial, the Probate and Family Court entered a judgment of divorce nisi that:
  - Awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony,
  - Divided marital property and allocated marital debts, and
  - Incorporated the parties’ stipulation on custody and the children’s education.
- The wife appealed, challenging the form and calculation of alimony, a life-insurance requirement imposed on her, and aspects of property and debt allocation.

## Issues

1. Whether the judge abused discretion under the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act by awarding rehabilitative alimony rather than general term alimony after a long-term marriage.
2. Whether the judge erred by excluding the husband’s bonus income when calculating the alimony amount.
3. Whether the judge properly required the wife to maintain life insurance policies as security for obligations under the divorce judgment.
4. Whether the property division and debt allocation were supported by the evidence and within the judge’s discretion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that awarding rehabilitative alimony was not an abuse of discretion where the record supported findings that the wife was employable and could re-enter the workforce within a defined period.
- The court held that the judge erred by failing to include all of the husband’s income, including bonus income, in calculating alimony.
- The court vacated the requirement that the wife maintain term and whole-life insurance policies because the findings did not supply an adequate basis for that security obligation.
- The court affirmed the division of marital property and allocation of marital debt as warranted by the evidence.
- The case was remanded for recalculation of alimony using the husband’s full income and for reconsideration/removal of the unsupported life-insurance requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act, a judge has discretion to select among statutory alimony categories, including rehabilitative alimony, if the statutory factors are considered and the choice is supported by findings.
- Rehabilitative alimony may be appropriate when the recipient’s employability in the near future is a realistic prospect, as shown by evidence such as education, work history, and earning capacity.
- In setting the amount of alimony, courts must consider the payor’s total income; regular or reasonably anticipated bonus income must be included absent a principled, fact-based justification consistent with statute.
- Orders requiring life insurance as security for financial obligations must rest on specific findings showing necessity and a rational connection to the obligations being secured.
- Property division and debt allocation under Massachusetts divorce law are reviewed deferentially and will be upheld when supported by the evidence and grounded in statutory considerations.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s discretion to award rehabilitative alimony after a long-term marriage based on findings of the wife’s employability, but it required alimony to be recalculated using the husband’s full income (including bonuses) and vacated an unsupported life-insurance security requirement, while leaving the property and debt division intact.


Zaleski v. Zaleski, 469 Mass. 230 (2014)