When Wealth and Parenting Collide: The Appeals Court Upholds Major Support Increases in Smith v. Smith
In a recent and instructive decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a Probate and Family Court judge’s order substantially increasing both alimony and child support in a high-income divorce modification case. Smith v. Smith, 23-P-830 (May 6, 2025), offers crucial guidance on applying the Supreme Judicial Court’s three-step Cavanagh framework and underscores the consequences of dramatic income growth—and disengaged parenting—after divorce.
The decision provides clarity on what Probate and Family Court judges must (and need not) do when modifying support orders. It also reflects evolving expectations in Massachusetts divorce law around financial transparency, parenting roles, and the fair division of post-divorce prosperity.
Background: From High-Earning Household to Post-Divorce Imbalance
Justin and Monique Smith married in 2000 and had two children, born in 2004 and 2008. The couple lived comfortably—“upper-middle to upper class,” in the trial judge’s words—supported largely by the husband’s work as a managing director at an investment firm. They vacationed frequently, owned multiple homes and a boat, drove luxury vehicles, and belonged to private athletic and social clubs.
While the wife earned over $300,000 annually early in the marriage, she left the workforce in 2005 to raise the children full-time. She remained out of the labor market for more than a decade. When she reentered in 2016, her earning power had plummeted; she returned to work earning about $112,000—a more than 60% decline from her previous income.
The parties divorced in 2018. Their separation agreement—merged into the divorce judgment—provided that the wife would have primary physical custody, the husband would parent the children one-third of the time, and he would pay $2,600/month in child support, $1,733/month in general term alimony, and $18,000/year in additional alimony when he received his year-end bonus.
The agreement also included several key financial terms:
Investment and inherited income would be excluded from alimony modifications.
The parties would equally share profits from one investment fund (Fund IV); the husband would retain profits from another (Fund V).
Alimony would be deductible to the husband and taxable to the wife.
A Post-Divorce Shift: Higher Income, Less Parenting
Soon after the divorce, the husband’s financial picture changed dramatically. He acquired new income-generating assets, including:
Fund VI, a new employer-based partnership, generating $87,938 in distributions in 2021; and
Caidlyn, LLC, a company owning farmland gifted to him by his father, which paid him $575,000 in 2021 and $325,000 in 2022.
At the same time, his involvement as a parent declined. By the time of the 2022 modification trial, the husband had not seen the children in over a year and had relocated permanently to Colorado. The parenting plan in practice bore no resemblance to the one agreed to in 2018.
In 2020, the husband filed a complaint to modify the parenting schedule. The wife counterclaimed, seeking increased alimony and child support.
After a two-day trial, the Probate and Family Court issued a 34-page judgment, modifying support retroactively to July 2020. The changes were substantial:
Alimony increased from $1,733/month to $4,766/month, paid weekly.
Child support increased from $2,600/month to $6,066/month, also weekly.
The husband owed approximately $180,000 in retroactive support.
The $18,000/year bonus-based alimony obligation was eliminated.
The judge explained that the bonus was already factored into the increased weekly alimony.
The husband appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed.
Key Legal Takeaways from the Appeals Court’s Decision
The opinion walks through each of the husband’s arguments—ranging from calculation errors to claims of tax misjudgment and contractual disregard—and finds them unpersuasive. Here are the major takeaways for family law practitioners and parties alike:
1. The Cavanagh Three-Step Framework Is Now Fully in Force
The Court upheld the trial judge’s application of the Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398 (2022), framework, which governs combined alimony and child support cases.
The three steps:
Calculate alimony first, based on the recipient’s need and statutory factors. Then calculate child support based on the parties’ post-alimony income.
Next, start again, calculating child support first. Then calculate alimony using the s. 53 factors.
Compare the result of each approach —factoring in tax consequences—to fashion the most equitable result.
The husband argued that the judge failed to make clear alimony calculations under Step 1 and ignored tax issues under Step 3.
The Appeals Court disagreed. It found that:
The judge considered and made findings on all relevant statutory factors for which evidence was presented.
The final alimony amounts—never exceeding the wife’s need or the 30–35% statutory income cap—fell well within judicial discretion.
The judge’s decision not to analyze tax effects was not an error, because the husband failed to present adequate evidence of those effects.
In other words, judges are not expected to be tax accountants. Parties must come prepared with “reasonably instructive evidence” if they want tax consequences considered.
2. Post-Divorce Wealth Growth Can Justify Support Increases
A significant aspect of this High-Income Divorce case is the Court’s clear stance: dramatic post-divorce income increases—especially when paired with reduced parenting time—can justify significant support modifications.
Between the divorce and the trial, the husband’s income grew from roughly $320,000 to over $1 million annually. Much of that income came from assets not addressed in the original agreement, including Fund VI and Caidlyn, LLC.
While the agreement excluded investment and inherited income from alimony calculations, the judge found:
Fund VI was a new investment—not addressed in the agreement.
Caidlyn, LLC was a gift, not an inheritance—and therefore not protected by the exclusion.
The Appeals Court agreed, finding no abuse of discretion in considering these income streams.
3. Deviation from Original Alimony Structure Permitted Where Justified
The husband objected to the judge’s decision to eliminate the $18,000/year bonus-based alimony and instead include bonus income in the increased weekly payments. He claimed this violated the parties’ original agreement.
The Court clarified that merged provisions in a separation agreement do not bind a judge in modification proceedings. Judges must consider the parties’ original intent—but they are not required to stick to outdated structures when circumstances change materially.
Given the husband’s vastly improved financial situation, the judge had discretion to simplify the alimony structure.
4. High-Income Earners Face Scrutiny for Failing to Support the Children’s Standard of Living
Child support was increased to over $6,000 per month—well above the presumptive guideline cap for combined incomes over $400,000. The husband claimed this was excessive and lacked factual support.
The Court disagreed. It noted that:
The guidelines give judges discretion to go above $400,000 in income when warranted.
A “lavish” lifestyle by one parent (e.g., a Porsche, golf memberships) justifies ensuring the children share in that standard of living.
The wife had been solely caring for the children for more than a year.
This tracks a clear policy principle: children are entitled to share in their parents’ financial circumstances, especially when one parent reaps dramatic post-divorce gains.
Practical Implications for Parties and Practitioners
The Appeals Court’s decision in Smith v. Smith reaffirms several key themes emerging in Massachusetts family law:
Support obligations are dynamic—not fixed in time.
Even well-crafted divorce agreements may be modified when significant post-judgment changes occur. Parties cannot insulate future income from scrutiny without express, unambiguous language—especially difficult for assets acquired after divorce.
Parenting time matters—financially.
When one parent steps back from their caregiving role, courts may impose increased financial obligations. It’s a reminder of what has been clear in the child support guidelines for many years – the presumptive child support calculation assumes the payor has about a third of the parenting time. When that’s not the case, the recipient incurs more expenses of the children and, accordingly, may seek an upward deviation.
Lifestyle is a measure of need.
Judges are not limited to checking off basic living expenses at the time of a modification when assessing alimony. They may look to what the parties enjoyed during the marriage—and what the lower-earning spouse can no longer afford alone. The reasoning is that alimony aims to provide the recipient with the same standard of living as was enjoyed during the marriage. In most cases, alimony won’t get the recipient there because there isn’t enough income available to do so.
Bonuses are income—and can be annualized.
Even if bonus income arrives once a year, courts may do the math necessary to convert to a weekly equivalent if doing so better reflects the parties’ current financial picture and simplifies enforcement. The same approach applies when parties have seasonal income or foreseeably strong commission weeks. It would be just as unfair to base weekly income on a single good week as it would be to base it on a single bad week. The task is to ascertain a fair representation of a party’s income and, when a bonus is paid annually, that likely means averaging it over the year.
Courts require evidentiary support—especially for tax arguments.
A party challenging a judge’s treatment of tax consequences must do more than file tax returns—they must make an explicit, informed argument backed by evidence. To assume a judge will factor in tax consequences without the presentation of evidence, likely expert testimony, assumes that judges are tax experts. Assuming that would be a mistake. While family law judges have likely dealt with tax issues, both in practice as attorneys and while on the bench, it’s highly unlikely they have training and experience to qualify them as an expert in tax law.
For tax and other complicated and technical issues, think of the judge as an intelligent individual whom you must educate with evidence on the facts so he or she may make an informed decision.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for High Earners and Passive Parents
Smith v. Smith is more than just a high-net-worth support dispute—it’s a reminder that divorce agreements reflect a moment in time, not a permanent shield from future change.
When financial circumstances shift dramatically, and when the reality of parenting responsibilities change, when asked, courts will act to restore balance and protect the best interests of children. That protection includes ensuring children—and the parent caring for them—live in a manner consistent with what the family once enjoyed together.