Gommonweaith of Massachusetts ‘The Trial Court Probate and Family Court Docket No. COMPLAINT FOR . MODIFICATION OF ALIMONY p19D0257D! Division [Hampden Paint Robert Valentine v. Defendant Mary E. Valente Ee 4. Plaintif resides at santo cr _ogats Tae REL RSRET “eiprrowey ® 2. Defendant resides at: 212 Springfield Street Wilbraham a _ 01095 Sores “pac Ray ——— Row Tea 3, On suy,26, 2024 «the partes wore granted a divorce by the * fdate) it MA Hamp ly Court Springfield Ree car Sa 4. On uly 26, 2024 «the above Court ordered that ———_———_—— Robert J, Valentine pay $2,475.00___per 5. There has been a materid! change of circumstances that warrants the modification of the amount of the existing aliriony order. Explanation: Plaintiff, e.g. resignatio income by over $259, Plain sno longer sc by Sacred Heart University, sad separation not a result of any action taken.by.the 6. Althis time, the alimony ~ ‘or insubordination, & his severance package ends October 31, 2021, reducing his; anniial .00 such that he is unable to pay the current order of $2,475.00 weekly effective 14/1/2021 jayor is seeking a modification of alimony because: ‘A) J the judgment ordering alimony is modifiable, {HYCO AISA AMEESEMXAERAREMARE! aS the *SAEETEOB? C1 itis Maren itis torch Ci itis March itis septent 8) 1 itis March 4, 201 cr wil reach full ©) 7 the recipient spo for continuous Oy OO 10812 paex order for alinony is incorporated & merged in the Judgment of Divorce. |, 2013 or after and the parties were married for 5 years or less. 2014 or after and the parties were married for 10 years or less, but more than § years. } 2015 or after and the parties were married for 15 years or less, but more than 10 years. Per 1, 2015 or after end the parties were married for 20 years or less, but more than 18 years. or afer and the alimony payor has reached full trement age as defined in G. Lc. 208, § 48, tirement age on or before March 1, 2018. oo has mainiaied a common household as defined in G. Lc. 208, § 49 with another person eriod of atleast three months,il : 7. Plaintiff asks that this Cort order that the above referenced judgment be modified a yates to income Cl increasing [3 decreasing (1) suspendin terminating the Sree . Ba! ‘wages from Sacred eart University Date: ature of Pa yi on Information on Attomey for Paitit __ Melissa R. Gillis, Esa, Bacon Wilson, P:C- = Pant _38 State Street__— RR Un Nee : _setognes aneeenerss3 Primary Phone #: 419-781-0560 ‘ BB.0.8 81215 Emait: magillis@baconwilson.com ____ INSTRUCTIONS Section 5 may be used by a payor OR recipient. ‘Section 6 A) and B) may be used ONLY by the payor and ONLY after the applicable date. Section 6 C) may ONLY be used by the payor. CAD 108 (3/1/12) page 2 of 7—E——_—_ SS -+~ Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Trial Court Probate and Family Court Department Hampden Division Docket No. HD19D0257DR MARY E. VALENTINE, Plaintiff vs. ROBERT J. VALENTINE, Defendant JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (on Complaint for Divorce filed March 4, 2019 and Counterclaim for Divorce filed May 13, 2019) All persons interested having been notified in accordance with law and after trial, at which the Plaintiff (hereinafter the “Wife”) appeared with counsel and the Defendant (hereinafter the “Husband”) appeared with counsel, IT IS ADJUDGED nisi that a divorce from the bond of matrimony be granted for the cause of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as provided by M.G.L. Chapter 208, §1B and that after the expiratiomsofininety"(90)'days'from the entry of this Judgment, it shall become and be absolute unless, upon the application of any person within such period, the Court shall otherwise order, and IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Wife shall retain the following real estate free of any claims by the Husband, and shall be solely liable for all expenses associated with the same: a) 212 Springfield Street, Wilbraham, MA; and, b) 12670 81* Street, Fellsmere, FL.all retain the following real estate free of any claims b) the Wife I retain th 9 y is by 2. The Husband sh sociated with the same: and shall be solely liable for all expenses as: a) 71 Wynnewood Lane, Stamford, CT; nye a b) 735 Stillwater Road, Stamford, CT, to the extent of his existing 50% interest; and, ) 77 Southfield Avenue, Stamford. Associates, to the extent of his isting 1/3 interest. CT titled in the name of VRV 3, The Wife shall execute a deed conveying her interest in 71 Wynnewood Lane, Stamford, CT to the Husband within thirty (30) days of the date of this Judgment. “The Husband shall attempt to refinance the existing Lloyd's of London Yen Loan to remove the Wife's name no later than six (6) months from the date of this Judgment. If unsuccessful, the Husband shall have the obligation to attempt a refinance each year until successful. The Husband may remove the Wife’s name by any other means so long as the Wife bears no liability or cost for the same. 4. The Wife shall receive 50% of any monies generated hereafter from the licensing agreements held between V Plus LLC and Sportech Venues, Inc., inclusive of but not limited to monies from renewals of the original licensing agreements if any, payment to be made within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the same by V Plus LLC. The Husband shall not be liable for any taxes due and payable on the Wife’s 50% portion of this distribution, and accordingly the Wife shall reimburse the Husband if there is any tax attributed to him as a result of her share. - The Wife shall receive 50% of any monies generated hereafter from two (2) notes receivable payable by Romano Brothers, LLC, inclusive of but not limited ‘oballoon payments, payments to be made within thirty (30) days of the receipt ofthe same by the Husband. The Husband shall not be liable for any taxes due and payable on the Wife's 60% portion of this distribution, and accordingly the 2ed to him as a result Wife shall reimburse the Husband if there is any tax attribute of her share. . The Wife shall receive 50% of any monies generated hereafter from the Husband's current book deal, audiovisual project relative to September 11, 2001 is interest in Makuhari Media LLC, payments to .ceipt of the same by the Husband. The sue and payable on the Wife’s 50% sty the Wife shall reimburse the Husband and movie production relative to his be made within thirty (30) days of the re Husband shall not be liable for any tax portion of this distribution, and accord: if there is any tax attributed to him as a result o if her share. The Husband shall convey to the Wife by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or as otherwise agreed by the parties $219,265 from his TIAA CREF 401(k) account and $220,050 from his Merril Lynch IRA, transfers 10 be made no later than September 15, 2021. The parties shall share equally the cost of QDRO preparation or other costs of transfer. The Husband shall retain both his TIAA CREF 401(k) and his Merrill Lynch IRA subject to the aforementioned distributions. . The Wife shall retain the following personal property, free of all claims by the Husband: All of her jewelry, collections, art, antiques, home furnishings, tools, a) nd personal belongings in equipment, memorabilia, pets and other animals a her possession; b) 2014 Chevrolet Express Cargo conversion van and her 2016 Tiffin Phaeton 36GH recreational vehicle; c) Citizens bank accounts #1673, #3331 and #8800; d) Bank of America account #7989; 32 ) TD Ameritrade investment account #8340, and, {) Minnesota long term care insurance policy cash value #1723. The Husband shall retain the following personal property, free of all claims by the Wife, except as otherwise stated in this Judgment: ions, art, antiques, home furnishings, tools, tia. pets and other animals and personal belongings in a) All of his jewelry, col equipment, mem: his possession; b) 2018 BMW motor vehicle; ©) First Country Bank account in the name of V Plus LLC #1985; d) First Country Bank account in the name of RV LLC #9441; e) Merril Lynch account #0382; ) Merrill Lynch “shadow” account #0378; 9) Merrill Lynch new ETF A account #0384; h) Merrill Lynch ML1 account #0379; i) Guardian Life Insurance cash value, policy #6204; j) Guardian Life Insurance cash value, policy #1181; k) V Plus LLC; ) RVLLC; m) Texas Rent account; n) Stamford Sports Associates; ©) Makuhari Media LLC; p) Gibney Mona Lisa LLC;q) Shintakujuko (Hero's Entertainment Co. Ltd.); 1) Mystic Ridge Jamaica Limited (aka Ochi Land holding, Ltd.); s) Panama Partners LLC; t) Wine by Design LLC; ¥) Skybridge Capital LLC and Skybridge Capital (Delaware GP); v) Newbury Commons; w) Ledger x; x) Nuveen Fund; y) Linn Energy; and, 2) Regency Energy. 10. The Wife shall be entitled to 50% of any income or earnings generated by the entities listed herein in 9.m. through z. hereafter, Payments to be made within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the same by the Husband. The Husband shall 11. The Husband shall Continue to receive 100% of his income from his employment with Sacred Heart University, dividend and ini income from his income producing Properties is i Entertainment. 12. The Wife shall Continue to receive 100% of her Social Security benefits.13. The Husband shall retain his interest in his retirement plans with AFTRA and NBC, free of all claims by the Wife. 14. The Husband shall pay to the Wife $1,829,475 on or before September 15, 2021. 15. The Wife shall be solely liable for those debts listed in section IX. of her Financial Statement dated April 3, 2024, exclusive of the Yen Loan with Lloyd's of London. 16. The Husband shall be solely liable for those debts listed in section IX. of his Financial Statement dated April 2, 2021. 17. The Husband shall pay to the Wife $2475 weekly in general term alimony until the first to occur of: either party's death, the Wife’s remarriage, the Wife's cohabitation within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 208, §49(d) or further order of the Court. 18. The Husband shall pay to the Wife 26% of any gross funds he receives hereafter from Revolution Co., weekly in general term alimony until the first to occur of: either party's death, the Wife's remarriage, the Wife's cohabitation within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 208, §49(d) or further order of the Court. 19. The Husband shall retain the Wife as the beneficiary of both of his Guardian Life Insurance policies, while he has an alimony obligation. 20. Each party shalll be liable for their own health insurance and uninsured health expenses and shall not be liable for the other party's health insurance or uninsured health expenses. 21. Beginning with the income tax filings for tax year 2021 in 2022, and every year thereafter, the parties shall file individual tax returns, and each shall be entitled to retain their own refunds, if any, and shall be liable for their own deficiencies, if any. For tax year 2020, if any refunds are due or were received, or deficiencies 6were owed or were paid, the parties shall share equally in receipi or payment, and adjustments shall be made to ensure compliance with this provision. 22. The Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions filed March 23, 2021 (#67) is DENIED, except as to the payment of legal fees and costs incurred as provided in this Judgment. 23. The Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions filed April 2, 2024 (#73) is DENIED, except as to the payment of legal fees and costs incurred as provided in this Judgment. 24. All legal fees and costs incurred during this litigation shall be shared equally by the parties, inclusive of but not limited to legal fees and costs for contested matters which may have been accrued by the unsuccessful party in a particular aspect of the litigation. All legal fees and costs shall be paid within thirty (30) days. Dated: July 26, 2021 Kathleen A“ Sandman Justice Probate and Family CourtINDINGS AND RATIONALE | DIVISION OF THE MARITAL ESTATE PURSUANT TO M.G.L. C. 208, §34 LENGTH OF THE MARRIAGE ‘The parties were married on January 8, 1977, making the marriage at the time of the Husband filing his Answer and Counterclaim to the Wife's Complaint on May 13, 2019', greater than forty-two (42) years in length, a fong-term marriage. The Court attributes considerable weight to the length of the parties’ marriage and recognizes that they worked as a team for many years to ensure the success of their partnership. AGE The Wife was sixty-seven (67) years old at time of trial. The Husband was seventy (70) years old at time of trial. HEALTH OF THE PARTIES Both parties appeared to the Court to be in good health. The Husband suffered a broken leg early on in his baseball career which was the beginning of the end for his playing days but did not affect his ability to stay in the game of baseball in other ways such as coaching and broadcasting and did not affect his eaming capacity in other ventures. STATION OF THE PARTIES The parties enjoyed an upper middle class lifestyle throughout the majority of their marriage. The Wife described the marriage as a “baseball marriage”, as the couple relocated frequently as the Husband’s baseball career shifted to different teams and different towns. Shortly after the marriage on June 15, 1977, the Husband was traded to the New York Mets and the Couple moved to New York, and Purchased a house in Pound eee ae Court uses te fling ofthe Husband's Answer and Counterclaim on May 13, 2019 to establish the length of ‘the marriage as no return of service was fled establishing a date when the Wife's Complaint was served. 9In mid Ridge, NY. In 1979 the Mets released the Husband and he became a free age May the Husband signed with the Seattle Mariners, and the parties spent one (1) year living in Bellevue, WA, and then returned to New York. In 1980 the parties purchased their first restaurant in Stamford, CT, Bobby V's Sports Café. In 1981 through 1985 the Husband was affiliated with the Mets again, first as an ‘The Husband wanted the Wife to be a “baseball instructor and then as a third base coach. gone for much of wife’ and the Wife acquiesced to that arrangement. The Husband was the time beginning with six (6) weeks of Spring training, and then one hundred sixty-two (162) games, eighty-one (81) of which were on the road. Even when the Husband was at home for games, he left for work midday and would often not return until after midnight. The parties’ only child Robert Valentine, Jr. (hereinafter “Bobby, Jr.”) was born in New York on April 25, 1983. In May 1985 the Husband became employed as manager of the Texas Rangers, and the parties moved to Arlington, TX. The Husband remained employed by the Rangers until 1992, By 1992 Bobby, Jr. had begun school and the parties agreed that they would remain living in Texas. The Husband opened two (2) additional restaurants in Texas, both named Bobby Valentine's Sports Gallery Café. From 1992 to 1994, the Husband worked in the baseball world in Cincinnati, OH and managing the Mets triple AAA team in Norfolk, VA, while the Wife remained with Bobby, Jr. in Texas. In 1995 the Husband obtained a job overseas managing the Chiba Lotte Marines in Japan. His salary was $900,000 for two (2) years, but he was terminated after one (1) year and came back to the United States in 1996. The Wife and Bobby, Jr. traveled to Japan to visit with the Husband three (3) or four (4) times during his employment. The Husband returned to coaching the Mets from 1996 to 2002. The Wife remained in Texas with Bobby, Jr. until Bobby, Jr. graduated from high school in 2001. In 2001 10the Wife and Bobby, Jr. moved from Texas to 71 Wynnewood Lane, Stam; where the Husband was already residing. ‘The Husband also opened restaurants in Norwalk, CT and Milford, CT. In 2004 the Husband was again offered employment with the Chiba Lotte Marines for a salary of $2,000,000 plus bonuses and options, for one (1) year. The Husband remained living in Japan and managing until 2009. The Husband would reside in Japan for ten (10) months each year, while the Wife lived in Connecticut but continued to visit the Husband in Japan several times each year The Husband's team won the Japanese World Series in 2005, catapulting the Husband to enormous celebrity. The Husband earned $20,000,000 from 2004 to 2009. During the time he was overseas the Husband would wire money into the parties’ UBS account for the Wife's use. The Wife credibly testified that during the marriage the parties lived a high-end lifestyle and the Husband never complained about spending, nor did she. They took trips to Switzerland and Italy skiing, bought luxury cars and designer clothes and attended black tie dinners. The parties agreed as to how their relationship would work with the Wife having the primary responsibility of raising “Bobby, Jr.” and managing the marital estate with the aid of professionals, and with the Husband providing the financial contributions to the marriage from the baseball sector and the restaurant sector. While sometimes non- conventional insofar as the actual time the parties spent together, it was what worked for them and established a successful partnership for decades. OCCUPATION AND VOCATIONAL SKILLS In the late 1970s after the parties were married, the Husband began his career as a professional baseball player, playing with the San Diego Padres, New York Mets and 11Seattle Mariners. His baseball career transitioned to coaching in 1980, and eee coaching and managing baseball until 2010, both domestically and in ape nots Husband was hired by the Boston Red Sox and managed the Red Sox from 2( 0 : earning $4,000,000, even though he only managed for the first year of his $2,000,000 per year contract. Exhibit 61 ‘The Husband also became a sports analyst first in 1980 with a “start-up” called ESPN and then again with ESPN ir. 2003, and later 2010 until 2011. The Husband earned $2,000,000 annually with ESPN in 20-10 and 2011 In 2011 the Husband gained a position in public life, becoming the director of public safety in his hometown of Stamford, CT. In 2013 the Husband became the executive director of athletics at Sacred Heart University and remains in that occupation today. As executive director the Husband is responsible for thirty-three (33) athletic programs. Additionally, at time of trial the Husband was considering a run for mayor of Stamford, CT in 2021. The Husband also enjoyed a parallel career to baseball and athletics in the restaurant arena. In 1980 he and a lifelong partner, Joseph Romano, Jr. (hereinafter “Mr. Romano) began his first restaurant located at 223-225 Main Street in Stamford, CT. The Stamford restaurant lasted thirty-eight (38) years, closing in 2018. During the years 1984 to 1989, the Husband also established restaurants in Milford, CT, Norwalk, CT, two (2) in Arlington, TX and in Middletown, RI. A final restaurant was begun in Queens, NY in 2001. The Husband and his partner Mr. Romano jointly ran the restaurants with Mr. Romano taking the lead on keeping the books and the Husband handling the supervision and management of staff. In the early years of the parties’ marriage, the Wife worked as a dental hygienist, having obtained her degree from the University of North Carolina. While the parties always owned dogs, beginning with "Captain’ in San Diego, CA, the Wife began dog 12training in 2001. The Husband supported her endeavors and came to some of the Wire's dog competitions. Over the years the Wife has won two hundred eighty-seven (287) AKC tiles and twenty-nine (29) championships. The Wife's relocation to Wilbraham, MA was to be closer to training and shows for her dogs. INCOME OF THE PARTIES AND EMPLOYABILITY During the marriage the Wife managed the money that the Husband earned, and by her account, ‘we were a great team’ s both pay monthly expenses by drawing from their investment account, formerly with UBS and now with Merrill Lynch. Exhibit 5 ‘The Wife's current gross income is a monthly income from Social Security of $1023.? Exhibit 5 The Husband’s gross weekly income at the time of trial included income from various sources, totaling $16,645. Exhibit 4 Included in those sources were the following: salary from Sacred Heart University ($4988), dividends and interest from Merril Lynch ($958), pension from Major League Baseball ($4010), Social Security ($659), income licensing agreements with Sportech Venues, Inc. (hereinafter “Sportech”) ($3772), rental income from 735 Stilater Road, Stamford, CT and from 77 Southfield Avenue, Stamford, CT ($231), board membership income from Revolution Co. ($725), ‘outside income from appearances and speeches ($100) and income from two (2) note payments ($1203). Exhibit 4 The Husband's future income from Revolution Co. is uncertain. Exhibit 4 The Husband as a member of RV LLC (hereinafter “RV’) holds two (2) notes from the sale of two (2) properties in 2018 in Stamford, CT, 223 Main Street and 239 Main Street. The terms of the notes provide for a payment of $1203 weekly, with balloon payments in 2023. Exhibits 29, 31 ? The Court chooses to round numbers inthis memorandum. Bjtures, one relative to a book deal and 87, 88 Both ventures are as a direct rts figure and in the case of the movie, of trial, the {The Husband is currently involved in bwo (2) Yer relative to an HBO movie. Exhibits 66, ition as a lifelong spo ian work after September 11, 2001. At the time Husband had received advances from both ventures, $35,000 for the book and $50,000 the movie. Exhibit 4 As both of these ventures result from the Husband's brand iso entitled to share in the profits from each the other result of the Husband's recogni in recognition of his humanitari for cultivated during the marriage, the Wife is al: venture and she is receiving 50% of each advance in her cash distribution from the Husband. ‘The Husband may have future pension income via his former employment with ESPN and other media, via AFTRA or NBC. The Court was not provided sufficient information as to this likelihood other than that the Husband may receive $245 monthly from AFTRA and $22 annually from NBC, sometime in the future, and consequently does not consider the Husband's receipt of the same other than to acknowledge his interest in such accounts. Exhibit 4 The Husband’s persona was the major catalyst to creating a financially valuable marital estate. In fact the Husband became a consultant to many other notable sports figures looking to beginning in the sports café model utilizing their own persona to incentivize a customer base. Exhibit 89 The Husband is also well-known for his work as a motivational speaker. The Husband has had benefits associated with his persona throughout the parties’ ‘marriage and will most likely continue to do so. The Husband argues that while he does have a benefit for who he is and for what he has achieved, his brand benefit is not what it once was, and that he is not actively searching for branding opportunities. The Court finds the assessments of both parties credible in that the Husband does have brand eile but that his opportunities are less than in the days he was coaching b: opining on ESPN or managing his own restaurants. sresenet 4ESTATE OF THE PARTIES ‘The parties have amassed a Substantial marital estate Containing multiple pieces of real estate, investments, businesses ane ether personal property. As the Husband's Samings increased the parties relied on profes @ 33% interest in commercial Property located at 77 Southfield Avenue, Stamford, CT, valued at $150,000. Exhibit 4 The Husband shall retain his interest in both Properties but the value of both was considered in arriving at the cash award to the Wife from the Husband. Exhibit 4 1sthe Wife purchased her Redding, MA home for 1,850,000 in 2010. tn 2015 the Wife sold her Redding home for $4,450,000 and received approximately $720,000 in net proceeds. Exhibit 45 With the proceeds, the Wife gave Bobby, Jr. $200,000 to buy @ condominium and paid approximately $600,000 towards a loan she had taken ona Guardian Life Insurance policy. Exhibits 7, 9, 13, 14 The Wife purchased her current home at 212 Springfield Street, Wilbraham, MA on May 24, 2013 for $772,000. Exhibits 41, 42 She rebuilt the barn for $500,000 to accommodate her dog training and horses. Part of the financing for the Wife's barn renovation was $158,832 on October 23, 2017 as stated on her bank statement. Exhibit 50 The Wife's Wilbraham home is currently worth $81 0,000, and the current equity available in the home for distribution is approximately $655,000. Exhibit 2 The Wife purchased a five (5) acre lot of land with a bam in Fellsmere, FL on March 28, 2016. Exhibit 46 The Wife drives her recreational vehicle to the Property annually. Her expenses consist of some electrical cost and $1200 per year in real estate taxes. The Wife spends five (5) months each year in Florida, from December to April. The Court finds that the value of the Fellsmere, FL property and the current equity available for distribution is $150,000, consistent with the Wife's trial testimony. The parties’ Merrill Lynch investment account portfolio contains approximately $3,594,000, in five (5) separate accounts, inclusive of four (4) bank accounts and one a) IRA. Exhibit 5 The Wife testified that the Husband bought her expensive jewelry during the marriage and she bought herself expensive jewelry during the marriage, and she values her jewelry at approximately $100,000. Exhibit 5 The Wife also has several paintings collectively valued at $100,000 as well as antiques. Exhibit 5 The Wife's dogs are worth approximately $6300. 16The Court finds that the (otai value of the Wife's jewelry, home furnishings, art, antiques, collectibles and memorabilia is $450,000. Exhibit 5 The Court is not persuaded that the value of said items is $1,116,00 as stated in the Wife's homeowner's insurance policy insofar as replacement coverage of said items, a policy which also contains a replacement value for the Wife's current Wilbraham dwelling which far exceeds the appraised value of the home. Exhibits 2, 43 The Court values the Husband's interest in his jewelry, memorabilia, home furnishings and tools and equipment at $61,500. Exhibit 4 The Court was not provided with any personal property appraisals as to personal property of either party and therefore relies on the parties’ Financial Statements as to the credible value of the same. The Husband owns an entity called V Plus LLC (hereinafter “V Plus”). The assets of V Plus are two (2) licensing agreements entered into in 2014 with Sportech, one located in Windsor Locks, CT (hereinafter “Bradley”) and the other in Stamford, CT (hereinafter “Stamford’). In the licensing agreements Sportech is allowed to use certain brands, service marks and trademarks particular to the Husband in restaurants located on the premises, in exchange for payment to V Plus. Exhibits 9, 10 The Bradley licensing agreement is a ten (10) year agreement with two (2) five (5) year options and provides payment of $100,000 per year or 1/3 of the net profit from the food and beverage sales, whichever is greater. Exhibit 10 \V Plus has never received more than $100,000 annually from this licensing agreement. Exhibit 89 The Stamford licensing agreement contains similar terms. Exhibit 9 Additionally, V Plus received a $350,000 initial licensing fee in the Stamford agreement. Exhibit 9 The licensing agreements garnered $1,628,265 of income from 2017 through 2020. Exhibit 89 Ms, Tullar analyzed the Husband's interest in the Sportech licensing agreements. Ms. Tullar observed, “Of note, Connecticut is in the process of legalizing certain types of sports betting. It is expected that when such legalized betting comes into effect, both the 7Bradley and Starnford Properties will be granied licenses. ivir. Valentine has been a iong- term proponent of legalized sports betting and actively championed this cause.” Exhibit 89 Ms. Tullar further opined that while speculative, the relationship between the Husband via V Plus, and Sportech could lead to future licensing agreements at additional locations, although her official analysis used 2021 data. Exhibit 89 The Court finds that the licensing agreements are marital assets subject to distribution, and further that each party is entitled te share equally in the same, now and in the future, Accordingly, the Court does not consider tie income paid to V Plus, wholly owned by the Husband, in calculating alimony as the Wife is already receiving a benefit from this asset by virtue of her award. The marital estate also includes two (2) notes receivable, one in an original amount of $560,000 held by RV and one in an original amount of $300,000 held by the Husband Personally. Exhibits 4,29,31,89 The parties disagreed as to the combined current value of these notes receivable with the Husband stating the value as $710,000, and the Wife arguing that the value is $772,000. Exhibits 4,89 The Court finds that regardless of the value of the notes receivable, the parties will be sharing this asset equally, and each will receive payments until each note is paid in full. Each note is to be paid in full via balloon payments on June 1, 2023. Exhibits 29,31,89 The marital estate includes three (3) ent 9s that exist each for specific purpose: V Plus, RV and Texas Rent Account (hereinafter “Texas Rent’). Ms. Tullar testified as to her expert opinion of equitable value of each of these aforementioned entities using the “adjusted book value method under the asset-based approach’. Exhibit 89 \V Plus is linked to Sportech in the licensing agreements between the two businesses The Court finds that the value of V Plus is in the monies currently in the First Country Bank account #1985 and in the future payments to be made pursuant to said licensing agreements. The Husband is retaining said bank account but the Wife is receiving her 18interest in said bank account by virtue of her cash payment from the Husband, as said bank account was considered in the Court's calculation of said cash payment. Each party is receiving an equal percentage in the income generated by the licensing agreements. The Husband agreed that he uses V Plus for some personal expenses, and in fact at least one $3000 cash gift for Junko Ogino (hereinafter “Ms. Ogino”) appeared in the First Country Bank account. Ms. Tullar could not find explanations for $132,208 in the Husband's V Plus bank account, and for ‘teen (13) checks drawn on the Husband's V Plus bank account. However, the Husband credibly explained that he withdrew funds from the V Plus account for the Wife's legal fees and his own legal fees, and paid a mix Of personal and business expenses. RV is the entity linked to the $560,000 Romano Brothers, LLC (hereinafter “Romano Brothers’) note receivable. The Court finds that the value of RV is in the monies currently in the First Country Bank account #9441 and in the ownership of the note receivable. The Husband is retaining said bank account but the Wife is receiving her interest in said bank account by virtue of her cash payment from the Husband, as said bank account was considered in the Court's calculation of said cash payment, Each party is receiving an equal percentage of the funds generated by the note receivable. Texas Rent is an entity that currently is inactive but carries a present value as it still owns assets. Exhibit 89 The majority of those assets consist of a $55,000 note receivable from Stamford Sports Associates (hereinafter “Stamford Sports”) and a $100,000 note receivable from Philip Hersh, one of the Husband’s attorneys*. The Court finds credible Ms. Tullar’s opinion of value of $158,000 for Texas Rent, but discounts the ‘same to $103,000 given the equally credible deposition testimony from Frank Ramppen as.to the current financial precarity of Stamford Sports and the conse quent uncertainty of repayment of the $55,000 note. Exhibit 63 ee ° Mr. Hersh does not represent the Husband in the divorce litigation, 19The Husband owns a 40% interest in Stamford Sports along with two (Z) of his longstanding partners, one of whom he mentored as a young baseball player. Exhibit 63 Stamford Sports owns Bobby Valentine's Sports Academy in Stamford, CT which “operates a 40,000 square foot athletic training faclty with 6 batting cages, a gym, and a Sporting goods store. Stamford Sports was not profitable in 2016 through 2018 and only Posted $30,000 of profits in 2019." Exhibit 89 The entity is currently operating at a loss but had an infusion of a PPP loan during the recent pandemic which helped to keep it afloat. Exhibit 89 Frank Ramppen, one of the co-owners of Stamford Sports confirmed the dire state of the business at the present time. Exhibit 63 Stamford Sports currently owes both V Plus and Texas Rent promissory notes of $90,203 and $55,000 respectively. Exhibit 89 The Court finds that at the present time Stamford Sports does not have any positive value. ‘The Husband has entered into an Agency Agreement to author a book referred to as “The Memoir of a Baseball Legend”, and received a $35,000 advance on the project. Exhibit 86 The Husband has also entered into a contract involving an audiovisual Production highlighting Major League Baseball's connection with the events of September 11, 2001, and received a $50,000 advance on the project. Exhibit 87 Makuhari Media LLC (hereinafter “Makuhari’), an entity in which the Husband owns a 28.63% interest, has. entered into a contract as a “Lender” relative to the production of a movie entitled “GREATEST BEER RUN EVER”. Exhibit 88 At the time of trial the Husband had not received any compensation relative to Makuhari’s involvement in said contract. The Court recognizes that all three (3) aforementioned ventures may in the future provide the Husband with income, and finds that it is equitable that the Wife should share equally in any compensation realized from the same. The Husband also owns interests in various entities all of which are listed here. Many of the same have no value at the present time. However, as these existing business interests were acquired by the Husband during the marriage using marital funds, the Wife 20url accounted for in calculating shall be entitled to 50% of their present value which the the cash payment from the Husband to the Wife, and the Wife shall further be entitled to income or earnings from the same if and when received, within seven (7) days of the Husband's receipt. Further, while at one time the parties owned six (6) restaurants all modeled after the original restaurant in Stamford, CT, none of these restaurants exist anymore. ‘The Court finds that all assets currently owned by either party in any capacity are part of this marital estate and have been considered in the division of said estate. In summary, {he Court finds the following assets are part of the marital estate and have the values herein assigned: ) First Country Bank account in the name of V Plus LLC #1985: $95,834; ») First Country Bank account in the name of RV LLC #9441: $69,229; ©) Merrill Lynch account #0382: $70,825; 4) Merrill Lynch “shadow” account #0378: $369,907; €) Merrill Lynch new ETF A account #0384: $2,001,590; f) Merrill Lynch ML1 account #0379: $711,824; 9) Merrill Lynch IRA #0383: $440,100; h) TIAA/CREF/Sacred Heart University IRA: $438,529; i) Guardian Life Insurance cash value, policy #6204: $501,917; j) Guardian Life Insurance cash value, policy #1181: $204,641; k) 2014 Chevrolet Express Cargo conversion van: $35,000; !) 2016 Tiffin Phaeton 36GH recreational vehicle: $125,000; m) 2018 BMW motor vehicle: $43,351; n) Citizen's bank accounts, #1673, #3331 and #8800: $20,783; ©) Bank of America account #7989: $492; P) TD Ameritrade investment account #8340: $32,815; 9) Minnesota long term care insurance policy cash value, #1723: $4724; ‘) V Plus LLC: value as stated herein in bank account and Sportech income; 21s) RV LLC: value as stated herein in bank account and nole receivable; t) Stamford Sports Associates: $0; u) Texas Rent Account: $103,000; v) Gibney Mona Lisa LLC: $50,000; w) Makuhari Media LLC: $0; x) Shintakujuko (Hero's Entertainment Co. Ltd.): $9619; y) Mystic Ridge Jamaica Limited (aka Ochi Land holding, Ltd.): $38,058; 2) Panama Partners LLC: $ aa)Wine by Design LLC: $0; bb) Skybridge Capital LLC and Skybridge Capital (Delaware GP): $42,868; ec) Newbury Commons: $0; dd)Ledger X: $104,526; ee)Nuveen Fund: $0; ff) Linn Energy: $0; and, gg)Regency Energy: $0. The Wife testified that the Husband made some bad investments on which she was not consulted including relative to property in Costa Rica and Florida, and that significant sums of money were lost. The parties lost $3,000,000 in 2008 when a UBS group was managing their money. On another occasion a fraudulent scheme involving $500,000 invested by Texas Rent involved the perpetrator being incarcerated and the invested funds being lost. Exhibit 89 The Court finds that while certainly bad investments were made over the years that on balance the Husband's significant eamings and the parties’ good investments more than provided for the financial security they both enjoyed during the marriage and will still enjoy after their divorce. Further, the Husband also made good investments including but not limited to his restaurants and an entity referred to as Big Fish Games that had a net value of $1,100,000 on a $125,000 initial investment. Finally, there was no evidence that the Wife did not continue to trust the Husband's business sense in making investments, even though 22she managed the parties’ money with the assistance of professionals. Consequently, the Court does not penalize the Husband for bad investments. LIABILITIES AND NEEDS OF THE PARTIES “The Wife's weekly expenses are $4979.79. Exhibit 5 The Wife testified that she takes $13,000 monthly from the parties’ joint account to pay for her expenses, and the Husband confirmed the same on his Financial Statement. Exhibit 4 The Court infers that the Wife at times uses the parties’ joint bank account to pay expenses over and above her monthly draw, as no evidence was provided that the Wife is behind on her bills. The alimony payment ($2475 weekly) and property distributions, including but not limited to the 50% awards of the licensing agreements ($1886 weekly) and note payments ($602 weekly), plus her own Social Security income of $238 weekly will provide the Wife with $5201 weekly, sufficient to pay her $4979.79 of expenses. The Wife was questioned as to her spending habits and testified that she did not view her spending to be excessive. Some of the Wife’s recent expenses include airline expenses, expenses for her dogs as well as for medical expenses. Exhibits 54, 55, 56,57 On another credit card the Wife's expenses varied with some months of 2020 showing purchases in excess of $10,000 but some showing purchases less than $200, with balances either being paid in full monthly or with the Wife carrying a small balance. Exhibits 54, 55, 56,57 The Wife corifirmed that her purchases on each of her credit cards range from $3000 to $10,000 monthly but that she is now beginning to charge less than she used to. The Wife's ability to freely spend significant sums of money and to access money to spend the same is indicative of the ease with which the parties agreed to manage their expenditures and debt and in general share their finances, even long after they had separated in most all respects other than legally. Likewise, the Husband is able to pay his liabilities and expenses without difficulty and will continue to do so. The Husband carries no credit card debt and is able to contribute $500 weekly to his retirement account which the Court views as an elective expense. 23Exhibil 4 The Husband's current weekly expenses, including both the deductions (rom pay and those not deducted from pay and including the Husband's alimony payment to the Wife, are $12,030, exclusive of a $2169 weekly expense to pay Bobby Jr.'s living expenses which the Court views as an elective expense, the aforementioned elective $500 retirement contribution and $3023 that the Husband listed as a draw by the Wife, which she will no longer be taking. Exhibit 4 The Husband's income will be reduced by his sharing both the Sportech income and the note payments directly with the Wife wine will now receive 50% of each. However, even after those reductions of $1886 and $602 weekly, and excluding the Husband's income from Revolution Co., the Husband will still have gross weekly income of $13,432, and an ability to pay his expenses. A second alimony payment by the Husband of 26% of income he may or may not receive from Revolution Co. is structured so as to be fully dependent on his receipt of this income source, allowing the Wife a benefit if the Husband receives the income but not penalizing him if he does not. Exhibit 4 OPPORTUNITY OF EACH PARTY FOR FUTURE ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS ‘AND INCOME The Husband and the Wife each have opportunities for future acquisition of capital assets, as each are retaining significant investment accounts, monies and property. The Husband has a greater chance at earning future income as he is already receiving income from several sources and may be entitled to additional income should he choose to continue to work. The Husband's reputation as a celebrity and a sports figure create opportunity for him to obtain income in a passive sense merely because of who he is. It is not anticipated that either party will engage in active employment in the future primarily because of their ages, but also because it is not necessary given their generous marital estate. 24AMOUNT AND DURATION OF ALIMONY AWARDED As further explained in the Court's analysis pursuant to M.G.L. c. 208, §53 herein, the Wife is entitled to alimony and the Husband has the ability to pay alimony. The Court is awarding the Wife lifetime alimony, based upon the Husband’s current sources of income, excluding any income received from property being awarded to the Husband in this Judgment. The Court calculated the Wife's alimony award by multiplying the difference in the parties’ gross incomes by 26%. The Court recognizes that the Husband's income may change as times moves on especially as he is already beyond the full retirement age contemplated in the statute. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PARTIES ‘Throughout the marriage the dynamic supported by and enjoyed by the parties was of the Husband as primary breadwinner in his roles as a professional sports figure and entrepreneur, and the Wife as homemaker with primary responsibility for raising the Parties’ son. Clearly, the Husband's contributions were to finances as he worked earning money throughout the marriage and continues to do so. It was the financial contributions of the Husband that opened the doors to allow the parties to enjoy a high standard of living. The parties agreed that the Wife would remain at home after Bobby, Jr. was born, and she unquestioningly was the primary caretaker for Bobby, Jr. during his youth. There were long stretches of time when the Husband would not be available to spend time with Bobby, Jr., due to his career in professional baseball, an arrangement known to both Parties and supported by both parties. The Wife's contribution to the marriage as homemaker allowed the Husband to continue to advance his careers and build the marital estate, The Wife also described herself as “chief financial officer of the family” and the Court finds that description credible. Working with professionals who made decisions as to the 25