Skip to main content


Showing posts from February, 2017

The New Massachusetts Standing Order on Parent Coordination: An Overview

Guest Post by Tony Pelusi * Well it has finally come to be; earlier this month the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court issued Standing Order 1-1 7 setting forth the qualifications, standards of practice, and scope of authority for Massachusetts Parenting Coordinators (PC).  For the first time in the history of the Commonwealth this rule informs clients, attorneys, and judges what is necessary to avail themselves of the multitude of benefits of the PC process provides. Those who wish to access the full text of rule directly may click here .  What follows is a summary of the salient provisions for practitioners and parents. First, Qualifications & Training: For starters, a PC must be a licensed, experienced, and specially trained lawyer or mental health professional.   To qualify for appointment as a PC individuals must apply to the Court and be approved, demonstrating that they have completed at least 30 hours of mediation training,  6 hours of training in intimate pa

Unvested Stock Options may be Income for Alimony Purposes - Ludwig v. Lamee-Ludwig

In Hoegen v. Hoegen, the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed whether it was a double dip to include restricted stock unit income in a child support order when those stocks had already been considered in the asset division.  The Appeals Court determined that the income should be included in the calculation, because the child support income definition is broad.  For more on that decision visit:  Income: What's In and What's Out when Calculating Child Support? In contrast to the child support guidelines, Massachusetts law on alimony specifically excludes income from previously divided assets: "When issuing an order for alimony, the court shall exclude from its income calculation: (1) capital gains income and dividend and interest income which derive from assets equitably divided between the parties under section 34..." MGL c. 208 § 53   This means that the RSUs addressed in the Hoegen case would not be included for alimony calculations.  But what about stock option