while cohabiting, the parties lived in a house that sold for one
million dollars. It was not unreasonable for the wife to purchase
a home that would accommodate her and the children before the
pension came into p[ l]ay.
 In my view, whether viewed cumulatively or in isolation,
the good fortune involved in the husband receiving an early pension payout and the wife’s financial decisions did not justify the
motion judge in departing from the ranges of Guidelines support
he was considering.
(b) Misunderstanding of the Guidelines ranges when
using them as his “check”
 Having, in my view, decided in error that the wife should
receive support below the lowest range suggested by the Guidelines, the motion judge still used the Guidelines as a “check” on
his own figures (para. 106). In so doing, however, he significantly
misapprehended the numbers that the Guidelines would generate in this case. In this way, he not only erred in deciding that
the wife should receive support below the lowest Guidelines
range, he then calculated a Guidelines number that was itself
far too low. This compounded the initial error and led him to
accept a means and needs formulation for the spousal support
award that was far too low and clearly wrong.
 In calculating the Guidelines support amount that would
serve as his “check”, the motion judge made at least two significant errors.
 First, he erred in overlooking the fact that this is a
“cross-over” case. Given that the motion judge terminated child
support, spousal support had to be determined using the “
without child support” formula under the Guidelines, rather than
the “with child support” formula. Inherent in that change is a
recognition that the spousal support the wife was receiving
under the “with child support” formula was lower than the
support to which she would have been entitled under the “
without child support” formula. Thus, even without the increase in
income due to the unequalized pension payout, the spousal
support to which the wife was entitled was higher in any event.
This was due at least in part to the fact that this was a cross-over case. (The husband’s income had also increased.) In any
event, the motion judge did not advert to the fact that it was a
 Without that acknowledgment, the starting point from
which the motion judge assessed the wife’s spousal support entitlement was too low: see Guidelines, at c. 14.5.