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 ...

The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 added a formula to Massachusetts Alimony determinations: "Except for reimbursement alimony or circumstances warranting deviation for other forms of alimony, the amount of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or 30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued. Subject to subsection (c), income shall be defined as set forth in the Massachusetts child support guidelines." M.G.L. c. 208 s 53(b)  (emphasis added)   Mathematical formulas are convenient and many practitioners and Judges are running the formula right away to see what the boundaries of alimony are (we've even encouraged this behavior with the creation of a website calculator and iPhone App ).  But the recent decision in  Hassey  indicates that the formula should not be the first step in the alimony inquiry. The formula should not be the first step in the alimony inquiry. ...