The parties separated in 1999 after a 17-year marriage.
Following the wife's death in 2011, her estate obtained a summary judgment order declaring that all property owned by either party at separation was co-owned equally and held in trust.
At trial to determine the equalization payment, the court rejected both experts' extreme interpretations of the summary judgment order.
The court found the order did not impose retroactive trust obligations that would penalize post-separation consumption or require compounding interest.
The court also determined that substantial bonuses paid to the husband by his company post-separation were remuneration for his active management services, not shareholder distributions, and thus were not subject to equal division.
After valuing the respective assets, the court ordered the husband to pay the estate an equalization payment of $7,932,647.50.
