Maturo v. Maturo

In 1988, Laura Maturo (plaintiff) and Frank Maturo (defendant) married, and in 1993, the Maturos had twins. Laura became a stay-at-home mother. Since 1999, Frank had worked in the area of global equity markets in the Manhattan office of Merrill Lynch. At the time Laura filed for divorce, Frank earned a base income of $200,000 a year. Frank also earned incentive compensation every year, including cash and stock bonuses. In 2003, 2004, and 2005, Frank’s cash bonuses were valued at about $500,000, $597,138, and $489,450, respectively. In previous years, Frank had received several million in cash bonuses. Frank also held millions in unexercised stock options and restricted stock, and the parties had almost $18 million in assets. The trial court awarded Laura approximately $10.65 million in assets, including a mortgage-free home worth $2.55 million. The parties’ teenage children would live with Laura 60 percent of the time. For child support, the trial court awarded Laura $636 per week based on a $4,000 upper-limit amount of income in the state’s child-support guidelines. Frank’s net weekly income was about $5,000. The court additionally awarded as child support 20 percent of Frank’s annual net cash bonus. Frank was ordered to pay all the children’s private-school tuition, all activity expenses, and all insurance expenses. The court stated that it had departed from the child-support guidelines because of Frank’s high earning capacity and extraordinary resources and Laura’s “need to provide a home for the children.” Frank appealed, arguing that the child-support order improperly included a percentage of his bonuses.