Kittredge v. Kittredge
2004 Mass. LEXIS 47, 803 N.E.2d 306, 441 Mass. 28 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether a spouse's expenditures, including gambling losses, constitute a dissipation of marital assets is a fact-specific inquiry that does not automatically result from the expenditure's illegality. Courts must consider the expenditure within the overall context of the marriage, including its timing, the spouse's intent, the impact on the family's financial stability, and the other spouse's awareness or acquiescence.
Facts:
- Elizabeth A. Kittredge and Sidney Kittredge were married in 1967.
- Throughout their 27-year marriage, Sidney was a compulsive gambler, regularly placing large bets on sporting events through bookies.
- Despite his gambling, Sidney was an excellent financial provider, enabling the family to maintain an 'upper class lifestyle.'
- Elizabeth was aware of Sidney's gambling activities throughout the course of the marriage.
- In 1990, Elizabeth received an inheritance valued at approximately $1.3 million.
- The marriage began to break down during the 1980s, a 'subtle and slow process,' but the couple did not separate until 1992.
- Sidney's gambling continued throughout the marriage, including during the period of its breakdown and after the divorce was filed.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth A. Kittredge (wife) filed for divorce from Sidney Kittredge (husband) in the Probate and Family Court.
- The case was tried before a master, and the judge adopted the master's findings but modified the property division.
- Both parties appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court reversed the judgment concerning the division of assets and remanded the case to the Probate and Family Court for further proceedings, specifically to determine the amount of the husband's gambling losses.
- On remand, the Probate and Family Court judge held an evidentiary hearing, found net gambling losses of $400,000, classified $40,000 of that as 'waste,' and entered a new judgment dividing the property.
- The wife applied for direct appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which was granted.
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 spouse's expenditure of marital funds on gambling, particularly illegal gambling, automatically constitute a dissipation of marital assets as a matter of law for the purpose of property division in a divorce?
Opinions:
Majority - Sosman, J.
No, a spouse's expenditure of marital funds on gambling, even illegal gambling, does not automatically constitute a dissipation of marital assets as a matter of law. The concept of dissipation is a fact-specific inquiry that must be viewed within the context of the statutory factors for equitable property division, focusing on fairness between the parties rather than punishing bad behavior. The court reasoned that dissipation typically involves expenditures made for a spouse's personal enjoyment at a time when the marriage is irretrievably breaking down, with the intent to deprive the other spouse of a fair share of the marital estate. Here, the husband's gambling was a long-standing practice throughout the marriage, not something that began in anticipation of divorce. Furthermore, his gambling did not negatively impact the family's high standard of living, and the wife was aware of the activity for many years without protest. The court concluded that the illegality of the conduct is just one factor to consider and is not determinative. The judge's decision to treat a small portion of the losses ($40,000) as dissipation was not arbitrary, as it could be justified as representing the losses incurred after the divorce filing, when the husband was on notice that he was reducing the divisible marital estate.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that in Massachusetts, a claim of dissipation of marital assets requires a nuanced, fact-specific analysis rather than a rigid, per-se rule based on the nature of the expenditure. The court establishes that the focus is on the actual impact of the conduct on the marital partnership and estate, not on the moral or legal character of the conduct itself. This decision grants judges broad discretion to consider factors such as timing, intent, financial harm, and the other spouse's acquiescence. It signals to future litigants that simply proving a spouse spent money on vices or illegal activities is insufficient; they must demonstrate how that spending specifically functioned to waste assets in the context of the marital breakdown, thereby harming the other spouse's interest in the estate.
