A Fresh Look at How Massachusetts Courts Divide Complex Assets

What the Appeals Court’s New Decision Means for Divorce, Equity Compensation, and Alimony

Massachusetts divorce law isn’t exactly known for standing still. Every few years, a new case arises that forces lawyers and judges to reconsider how property is divided and how alimony is awarded, especially when the marriage involves complex financial structures, private company equity, or compensation packages that seem to require their own translator.

In Karim Suwwan De Felipe v. Leila El-Youssef Suwwan, decided October 15, 2025, the

Appeals Court added another important chapter to the evolving conversation about equitable distribution.

The decision gives judges and practitioners a new way to analyze private-company

equity—one that moves beyond the usual formulas we’ve leaned on for years. If you handle high-asset divorces or cases involving equity compensation, this one is particularly important.

Why This Case Stands Out

Moving Beyond the Time-Rule Formula

Massachusetts courts have often relied on familiar approaches when dividing employment-based assets earned during the marriage but vesting later.

Cases like Baccanti v. Morton (2001) and Adams v. Adams (2011) gave courts a “time-rule” roadmap for stock options and speculative assets. Useful? Yes. Foolproof? No.

This case recognizes something family-law attorneys have known for years but courts haven’t always embraced: not all executive compensation behaves like stock options, and forcing new-school assets into old-school formulas isn’t always fair or accurate.

The Appeals Court effectively said, “Use the formula when it makes sense, and don’t when it doesn’t.” A refreshing dose of common sense.

The Story Behind the Appeal

Long Marriage, Long Trial, Even Longer Equity Plans

The couple married in 2011. Husband worked at Fidelity, climbing the ladder as a research analyst and portfolio manager, while Wife worked as a dentist earlier in the marriage.

The divorce process lasted years, literally, and culminated in a 2024 judgment from Judge Megan Christopher in Suffolk Probate and Family Court. A large portion of the trial focused on three categories of Fidelity equity:

• Nonvoting Common Shares (NVCs)
• Investor Entity Units (IEUs)
• Performance shares

The twist? Fidelity is a private company. So there’s no market value you can pull from a website. Everything comes from internal valuations, internal rules, internal vesting schedules, and internal financing.

Translation: a headache for anyone trying to divide them.

Judge Christopher sorted through the layers anyway and divided the marital estate, including these assets, with methodical detail. The husband appealed, arguing that both the property division and the alimony determination were wrong.

The Appeals Court disagreed.

Understanding Fidelity’s Equity

What Are NVCs?

NVCs give select Fidelity employees a slice of ownership, minus any actual voting power. They’re available only to people who qualify as accredited investors, and employees can use low-interest Fidelity loans to buy them.

As the shares vest, the loans are repaid. It’s a retention tool, a status symbol, and a wealth-building vehicle… but not a publicly traded asset.

What Are IEUs?

IEUs are essentially ownership interests in companies that Fidelity owns or partially owns.

They are fully vested immediately, but the rules for transferring them are strict. They can also generate dividends, sometimes instead of cash distributions. Like NVCs, IEUs rely on internal valuations.

Bottom line: both assets are real, valuable, and marital in nature when earned during a marriage.

The Key Issue: Were the 2020 NVCs and 2020 IEUs Marital?

Judge Christopher Said Yes Husband Said Absolutely Not

Appeals Court Said “Try Again”

Three months after filing for divorce, Husband became eligible to purchase 20,000 NVCs and a tranche of IEUs. He bought more in 2022.

Judge Christopher awarded Wife:

• 50% of the 2020 NVCs
• 50% of the 2020 IEUs
• None of the 2022 tranches

She also assigned her half of the related loan obligations (fair is fair).

Husband argued that because the 2020 purchases happened after the divorce filing, they couldn’t possibly be marital. This is where the Appeals Court stepped in with the obvious:

• The husband earned the right to buy those NVCs because of his performance during the marriage.
• The only way he qualified as an accredited investor was through marital
• His post-filing purchase date didn’t magically erase the years of marital effort that positioned him for the opportunity.

The Appeals Court upheld Judge Christopher’s findings and added a bit of its own bluntness: there was “no serious question” these assets belonged, at least in part, in the marital estate.

Why the Time-Rule Formula Didn’t Work Here

Not Every Asset Fits the Baccanti Mold

Husband insisted the court should have applied the modified Baccanti time-rule calculation, which probably would have given him more than half the equity. The court rejected that argument.

The reason was simple: NVCs are not stock options. They’re not speculative, not dependent on future performance, and not structured the way traditional options are.

They are earned through long-term marital contributions and guaranteed through financial eligibility the parties built together. The Appeals Court confirmed what many practitioners suspected:

We do not need a one-size-fits-all formula for every employment-related asset.

The Alimony Battle

High Income Means High Scrutiny and a High Likelihood of Losing on Appeal

Judge Christopher ordered Husband to pay Wife $10,673 per week in general-term alimony for up to 117 months. The husband challenged this too.

The Appeals Court again affirmed the trial judge’s work. And the reason is one we see often: Credibility.

When alimony turns on credibility assessments, appellate courts very rarely reverse a trial judge. The husband couldn’t overcome that hurdle. The Appeals Court reiterated that under the Alimony Reform Act, substantial awards are still appropriate where supported by the statutory factors.

High alimony is not dead. Not even close.

What This Case Means for Future Divorces

Equity Compensation Cases Just Got a Little More Flexible

Here’s what practitioners and litigants should take away:

1. Courts can abandon the time-rule when the asset doesn’t fit it.

No more jamming square pegs into round holes.

2. Private-company equity is absolutely divisible.

Even when purchasing post-filing.

3. Accredited-investor status is marital.

If you wouldn’t qualify without marital earnings or savings, that matters.

4. Judges have wide discretion—borderline enormous discretion.

This decision reinforces it.

5. High-end alimony awards remain alive and well when facts justify them.

The rumor that alimony is becoming extinct is greatly exaggerated.

Massachusetts Continues to Treat Marriage as an Economic Partnership

This decision underscores the idea that marriage is a long-term financial team effort. Even when one spouse is the high-earning executive, the other spouse’s direct or indirect

contributions can entitle them to a share of complex, illiquid, or hard-to-value interests.

Judges will continue to shape equitable division by blending fairness, common sense, and

creativity.

As compensation packages become more complicated, courts will keep adapting. This case is another step in that evolution. For high-asset divorces involving private-company equity, expect to see this decision cited again and again.

And if you’re navigating divorce, property division, alimony, or high-value executive compensation yourself, make sure you have a team that understands how all these moving

pieces work—preferably one that doesn’t panic when someone mentions “net asset value” or “vesting tranches.”

We genuinely enjoy helping clients through these challenges. If you’d like support, reach out to Wright Family Law Group to book your free 15-minute discovery call, or call 978-917-7794.