Q After 35 years of being a stay-at-home mom and housewife, I told my husband I wanted a divorce. I suggested we value all of our assets and split the total 50-50. He laughed, claiming that because he’d been a “super contributor”, I’d get nothing and have to find a job to support myself.
What is a super contributor? Should I be worried?
A The first use of the phrase “super-contribution” was in the 2000 case of Williams (wife) v. Massa (husband). Massa earned most of the money, took care of the family business, was active in caring for their learning-disabled children, made meals, cleaned up, fed the cats, and even removed and replaced the dirty kitty litter when it became intolerable – one of Williams’ only household responsibilities.
The trial judge awarded the husband the approximate $3 million of assets in gifts and inheritance from his parents. The wife got alimony plus 74 percent of the other assets, including the unencumbered $892,000 martial home and alimony.
You need to go to my website, wendyhickeylaw.com. Type “massa” into the find box. You’ll be able to read the entire Massa case to understand the differences between Williams and you. Also type “super” into the find box and you will get a list of everywhere that word appears in articles and in over 500 cases on my website.
Assume your husband proves he brought a chunk of money to the marriage. He might be awarded that initial sum. However, if he used martial sweat equity to buy and sell stocks or other assets that increased the overall value, you’d probably get half that increase, plus half of the other non-inherited/gifted assets.
Since 2000, other spouses have tried to get most of the assets by claiming they, too, were “super” contributors. Insofar as I know, they lost because their claims were not similar to Massa. So, assuming you were the parent who did most of the cleaning of the house and bought food, prepared meals, did the laundry, were the primary caretaker and drove your children back and forth to schools, etc. you should expect the judge to rule your contributions were equal to his.
Give your husband a copy of the Massa case. Then, if he trots out his “super contribution” claim in court, he’ll prove he’s another human who has learned from history that he cannot learn from history.