Ketterle v. Ketterle
61 Mass.App.Ct. 758, 814 N.E.2d 385, 2004 Mass. App. LEXIS 980 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court has broad discretion to order an equitable, rather than equal, division of marital assets, and may heavily weigh a party's enhanced future ability to acquire income and assets when fashioning such a division. An order for future college expenses is generally premature unless college attendance is imminent.
Facts:
- Gabriele Ketterle (wife) and Wolfgang Ketterle (husband) were married in Germany on September 20, 1985, and the marriage lasted seventeen years.
- The couple had three children, born in 1986, 1988, and 1992.
- The wife, who was not fluent in English, moved to the United States for the husband's career and was a homemaker and part-time teacher's aide, permitting the husband to focus on his work as a professor at MIT.
- The husband was a tenured full professor at MIT who worked very long hours in his laboratory.
- In 2001, the husband was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for his work on Bose-Einstein condensates.
- The husband decided to give one-half of the after-tax Nobel Prize money to his professional mentor.
- In August 2001, the wife was hospitalized following a suicide attempt and severe depression and continued to be treated with antidepressants.
Procedural Posture:
- Gabriele Ketterle (wife) and Wolfgang Ketterle (husband) were parties to a divorce action in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court (trial court).
- The trial court judge entered a judgment of divorce that divided the marital property, awarding the wife approximately 62% of the assets.
- The trial court judge also ordered the husband to be responsible for the college expenses of all three of the parties' children.
- Wolfgang Ketterle (husband), as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- Gabriele Ketterle (wife) is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court abuse its discretion by awarding a disproportionately larger share of marital assets to one spouse by heavily weighing the other spouse's extraordinary future earning potential, as evidenced by a recent Nobel Prize?
Opinions:
Majority - Kafker, J.
No, a court does not abuse its discretion by awarding a disproportionate share of assets based on one spouse's future earning potential. The trial judge has broad discretion to assign marital property equitably, not necessarily equally, after considering the statutory factors in G. L. c. 208, § 34. The court found it was not an abuse of discretion for the judge to rely heavily on the 'ability of the parties to acquire future income and assets.' The husband's Nobel Prize, combined with his brilliance, work ethic, and good health, created a striking contrast with the wife's limited vocational skills, fragile mental health, and 'paltry and stagnant' future prospects. The wife's contributions to the home and child-rearing enabled the husband's career success, further justifying the unequal division. The court also held that while ordering payment for the oldest child's imminent college expenses was proper, the order for the two younger children was premature and should be vacated.
Concurring - Lenk, J.
Yes, I concur with the majority's decision. I write separately to highlight the difficulty trial judges face regarding future college costs. While deferring the decision often leads to future litigation and discourages parental saving, settled case law constrains judges from issuing premature child support orders for non-current needs. The law treats college costs as a form of child support, which can only be ordered to meet 'current' needs. Because the judge's order for the two younger children was framed as a future support order, it was correctly vacated as premature. This case does not address whether, under asset division principles (G. L. c. 208, § 34), a judge could create a trust or other set-aside from marital property at the time of divorce to provide for future educational needs.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant discretion afforded to trial judges in Massachusetts in the equitable division of marital property. It establishes that a court can justify a substantially unequal property division by heavily emphasizing one party's vastly superior future earning potential, particularly when that potential is linked to an extraordinary achievement like a Nobel Prize. The decision treats such potential not as a divisible asset itself, but as a crucial factor justifying a larger award of existing assets to the less-advantaged spouse. The case also clarifies the judiciary's limited power to pre-order college expense payments, affirming the general rule that such orders are premature unless college is imminent for the child in question.
