This one is an interesting case. We usually think that if someone is rich, they are immune and this case proves it to some extent. We’ll be talking about Jay Korff of Boston, a financial advisor who did some pretty bad stuff. More on the case below:
Boston Man Jay Korff Charged with Threatening and Stalking Middlesex County Judge
A Suffolk County grand jury has indicted Jay Korff, a 54-year-old financial adviser from Boston, on multiple charges after he allegedly launched a campaign of harassment and intimidation against a Middlesex County judge who had presided over his divorce case more than two decades ago.
According to the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office, Jay Korff is accused of engaging in a disturbing pattern of behavior targeting Probate and Family Court Judge Spencer Kagan. Prosecutors allege that Jay Korff not only made repeated threatening and harassing phone calls to the judge and his family, but also unlawfully accessed the judge’s email account.
Jay Korff, who works at Morgan Stanley, is facing an arraignment on July 23. He has been indicted on two counts of stalking, three counts of making threats, four counts of making annoying phone calls, and one count of unauthorized access to a computer system. Although the Middlesex DA’s office is handling the prosecution, the indictment was returned in Suffolk County, where most of the alleged criminal activity is believed to have occurred.
The origin of the conflict traces back to a contentious divorce case in 2002, in which Judge Kagan ruled against Jay Korff on a key financial issue. At the time, Kagan ordered Jay Korff to pay alimony to his former wife based on his average annual income over five years, which exceeded $900,000. Jay Korff’s income reportedly ranged from $500,000 to as high as $1.6 million per year during that period.
Jay Korff, dissatisfied with the ruling, appealed the decision. The Massachusetts Appeals Court eventually sided with him, overturning Judge Kagan’s order. The appellate court found that although Jay Korff had filed for divorce without initially informing his wife, a move described as deceptive, the judge did not have the authority to override the couple’s original agreement, which had stipulated that alimony be calculated based on Jay Korff’s income on a year-by-year basis.
Despite winning the appeal, prosecutors allege that Jay Korff continued to harbor resentment against Judge Kagan, which escalated into a disturbing campaign of retaliation.
In a now-deleted online post from last year, Jay Korff publicly lashed out at the judge, calling him a “thieving Communist Lothario” and blaming him for the financial and emotional toll of the divorce proceedings.
Law enforcement officials say they were able to trace several harassing phone calls to the judge and his family back to an AT&T TracFone. A search of Jay Korff’s Boston apartment yielded critical evidence, including a TracFone with a serial number matching the one used in the calls. Investigators also reportedly found recorded voicemail messages intended for the judge and his relatives, as well as digital files containing photographs of the judge and members of his family.
The Middlesex District Attorney’s office described the messages left on the judge’s voicemail as “alarming” and said that Jay Korff’s behavior caused significant distress to the victims.
The case raises concerns about the safety and privacy of public officials, particularly judges who may become targets due to rulings made in the course of their professional duties.
If convicted on all counts, Jay Korff could face a substantial prison sentence. His legal team has not publicly responded to the charges, and it remains unclear whether he will contest the indictment at his upcoming arraignment.
The investigation remains ongoing as authorities continue to examine the full scope of Jay Korff’s alleged conduct.
Case Study: Jay S. Korff v. Jill R. Korff
Background:
Jay S. Korff and Jill R. Korff were married on March 29, 1992, two days after signing an antenuptial agreement. This agreement stipulated that, in the event of a divorce, alimony would be calculated annually based on a percentage of the husband’s gross income, with the percentage increasing according to the length of the marriage. The agreement defined the end of the marriage as the date a divorce complaint was filed.
On February 28, 2002, Jay Korff filed a divorce complaint in the Middlesex Probate and Family Court but did not serve it or notify his wife. The couple continued living together until December 26, 2002, when Jill Korff filed and served her own complaint.
Trial Court Decision:
Judge Spencer M. Kagan ruled that the controlling date of the divorce filing was December 26, 2002. This extended the marriage beyond 120 months, entitling Jill Korff to 21% of her husband’s gross income per the agreement, instead of 16%.
Although the validity of the antenuptial agreement was not seriously disputed and was ultimately upheld, the judge found Jay Korff to lack financial credibility. Rather than apply the agreement’s annual alimony calculation, the judge imposed a fixed alimony amount based on Jay Korff’s average gross income over the prior five years—$926,725.50. This resulted in monthly alimony payments of $14,625.24. The judge also awarded $25,000 in attorney’s fees to Jill Korff.
Appeal:
Jay Korff appealed, arguing that the court erred by not enforcing the agreement’s terms, particularly regarding annual alimony calculation. The Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed, ruling that the judge improperly modified the agreement by instituting a fixed annual alimony amount, contrary to the contract’s express terms.
The appellate court acknowledged the judge’s concerns regarding Jay Korff’s financial conduct—such as non-disclosure of assets, abusive behavior, and manipulating the divorce timeline—but emphasized that a valid antenuptial agreement must be enforced unless it is unconscionable at the time of divorce. Since the agreement was found valid and enforceable at both the time of signing and the time of divorce, the modification of alimony terms was not legally permissible.
Ruling:
The Appeals Court vacated the portion of the divorce judgment relating to alimony and remanded the case for recalculation of alimony consistent with the agreement’s original terms—i.e., 21% of Jay Korff’s gross annual income. The court also guided future enforcement, suggesting that if disputes arise over income calculation, either party could return to court for relief, including accounting, contempt proceedings, or appointment of a master.
The wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees was denied. However, the current alimony arrangement will remain in effect temporarily until the Probate Court issues a revised order.
The alimony provision of the divorce judgment is vacated. The case is remanded for recalculation of alimony based on the annual income percentage specified in the antenuptial agreement. Further evidentiary proceedings, if any, are left to the discretion of the trial court.
Footnotes: The companion case is Jill R. Korff v. Jay S. Korff.
The husband also challenged the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the wife. However, the appellate court found no error and upheld that portion of the judgment, citing G.L. c. 208, §§ 17 and 38, and the precedent DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 38–39 (2002).
The husband did not serve his February 28, 2002, divorce complaint until June 19, 2003—two days after the wife filed a motion to dismiss his complaint.
The trial judge ruled that the effective date of divorce was December 26, 2002, as the husband failed to provide credible justification for not serving his complaint within 90 days, as required by Massachusetts law. He admitted filing early to limit his wife’s share under their agreement. He does not contest this finding on appeal.
Despite acknowledging that a valid antenuptial agreement made statutory factors under G.L. c. 208, § 34 irrelevant, the judge still applied those factors, ostensibly to interpret the agreement and determine child support. However, such factors are not relevant in interpreting or enforcing valid antenuptial agreements. Child support, separately, is governed by G.L. c. 208, § 28 and the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines.
The husband’s income varied widely:
- 1998: $1,346,909.51
- 1999: $903,652.91
- 2000: $1,590,450.19
- 2001: $1,426,528.23
- 2002: $547,618.10
- 2003 (through Oct. 31): $430,028.98
The agreement defined “gross income” as all earnings in a given year, including deferred compensation earned in that year (but excluding deferred compensation from prior years), minus any child support paid by the husband.
The judge’s finding that the husband lacked financial credibility was based on his omission of residual income and assets, such as his share of a family home. The judge also believed the husband may have deliberately lowered his income. However, direct evidence supporting this was limited; market decline and the loss of a major client were likely factors.
The calculated average income excluded the husband’s production bonus, which the judge deemed deferred compensation under the agreement. This aspect was not challenged on appeal.
Under the terms of the agreement, alimony would end upon any of the following: (1) either party’s death, (2) the wife’s remarriage, or (3) after 129 months—the duration of the marriage.
The trial judge also ordered arbitration (as per the agreement) for asset division and child support. These orders were not challenged on appeal.
Even using the husband’s lowest reported income ($430,028.98 in 2003), the wife would have received at least $90,306.09—an amount that meets the DeMatteo standard for sufficient support.
Although this case does not involve self-employment or hidden income, the husband’s ability to reduce his income still raises concerns. Nonetheless, the remedy for such concerns is not to alter a valid antenuptial agreement. For similar cases, see Schuler v. Schuler, 382 Mass. 366, 373–374 (1981); Bassette v. Bartolucci, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 732, 735–736 (1995); Flaherty v. Flaherty, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 291 (1996).
Given the appellate court’s decision to vacate the alimony ruling, it did not address additional factual disputes raised by the husband, as they stem from the improper modification of the agreement.
The husband was barred from calling his supervisor as a witness due to late disclosure. If the case is reopened, the supervisor could potentially clarify issues related to the husband’s income (see footnote 8).
Overview of Threats & Stalking in Boston
Trends & Enforcement
While violent crime in Boston has dropped significantly over the decades, non-violent offenses like stalking and threats, especially those involving cyber components, remain a major concern.
- Stalking is criminalized under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265, Section 43, requiring a pattern of three or more willful acts causing substantial emotional distress and fear.
- Criminal harassment similarly involves a series of intent-driven communications or acts that alarm the victim.
Legal Penalties
- Stalking carries up to 5 years in state prison, or a fine up to $1,000 and/or up to 2½ years in a house of correction.
- Criminal harassment also invites severe penalties, frequently alongside restraining orders and criminal charges.
Recent Cases & Statistics
Cyberstalking & Threats
- In September 2024, James Florence Jr. pleaded guilty to seven counts of cyberstalking more than six women over 16 years; sentencing is scheduled for July 23, 2025.
- On June 10, 2024, a Massachusetts man received a sentence of over 7 years for threatening an interracial couple via Facebook Messenger, plus obstruction of justice charges.
Hate-Motivated Threats
- A Massachusetts man pleaded guilty in November 2024 for threatening a Jewish community and plotting to bomb places of worship, a federal hate crime.
Broader Context in Massachusetts
- Statewide, hate crime incidents in 2023 totaled 630, up from 477 in 2022—illustrating a rise in threats and harassment permeated by bias.
Victim & Demographic Insights
According to national data:
- 84% of stalking victims report feeling fearful, threatened, or concerned for their safety.
- Most stalking perpetrators (80–90%) are male, and female victims are often targeted by men.
Legal & Support Resources
- Victims in Boston can file emergency protective or no-contact orders, enforceable across state lines under the Violence Against Women Act.
- Given the legal complexity, victims are encouraged to work with police, DA victim advocates, and civil attorneys to pursue both criminal charges and restraining orders.
Conclusion
Threatening and stalking offenses in Boston persist as serious public safety issues. Though violent crime has largely decreased, these offenses, especially with online components and hate motivations, are increasing in both frequency and severity. With significant prison terms and civil protections available, Massachusetts has a robust legal framework. However, enforcement remains critical, and victims must be aware of both legal recourse and support systems to protect themselves.
