MA Court OKs Division of Workers' Comp Settlement Between Divorcing Couple

In a Massachusetts divorce proceeding, a state appellate court affirmed a decision by a state Probate and Family Court judge that had allocated $50,000 of the husband’s remaining workers’ compensation settlement proceeds to the wife as a divisible marital asset [Warnajtys v. Warnajtys, 2020 Mass. App. LEXIS 76 (June 16, 2020)]. The appellate court agreed that the $50,000 award was rationally balanced against her need to buy out the husband’s $105,000 interest in the marital home and there was ample evidence that the judge considered the equities in light of the parties’ equal contributions to the marriage, their ages, health, and other statutory considerations.

Background

The husband filed a complaint for divorce in February 2016. In April 2017, prior to the entry of the divorce judgment, the husband received a workers’ compensation lump-sum settlement of $240,000 for a workplace accident that occurred during the marriage in 2014. Some of the settlement funds were distributed to both the husband and wife during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, but $123,230 remained in escrow at the time of the trial.

As part of a settlement agreement between the parties, the wife had agreed to purchase the husband’s interest in the marital home for $105,000. The trial judge considered the evidence, determined that the settlement proceeds constituted a divisible asset, and awarded $50,000 of the remaining balance to the wife. The husband appealed.

Appellate Court Decision

The appellate court indicated that initially, it agreed that the workers’ compensation settlement qualified as marital property. The accident occurred during the marriage and the settlement was received before the judgment of divorce nisi became final.

Turning to the division of property, the appellate court held the trial court did not abuse her discretion in making the allocation of the worker’s compensation settlement to the wife in that the $50,000 award was rationally balanced. The court stressed that mathematical precision was not required of equitable division of property. Reviewing the record, the court said there was ample evidence that the judge considered the equities in light of the parties’ equal contributions to the marriage, their ages, health, and other statutory considerations.