Divorce Mediation Blog

Just What is a “New Legal Consequence”?

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Not a Shifting Alimony Presumption, under Van Ardsdale v. Van Ardsdale

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

The crux of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) recent Van Ardsdale v. Van Ardsdale, is that the retroactive effect of durational limits under the Alimony Reform Act (eff. 3.1.12) (ARA) is constitutional because the imposition of these constraints is “merely” presumptive and, therefore, do not “attach new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment”.

We do not question precedent. While its comparison of a sex offender’s right to contest registration requirement for adjudications that occurred before the registry legislation, in Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. 3839 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., to alimony recipients’ right to seek deviation from the “presumed” durational limits is cringe-worthy, we get the analysis. Because the sex offender and the alimony payee both have some chance of eluding the impact of new legislation, the former by an appeal to the Board, and the latter by an “interests of justice” court deviation from alimony termination, the individual’s jeopardy is not foregone; therefore, it does not rise to the level of a “new legal consequence”.

Presumptions, the SJC reasons, are “simply rules of evidence”.

But, sometimes good legal analysis defies reality, or at least practicality.

Before ARA, the burden of proving changed circumstances to justify the termination of alimony sat squarely on the shoulders of the payor. Retirement? Just one circumstance to consider. Income loss? Well, maybe, but just how did that happen, anyway. Cohabitation of the recipient? Forgettaboutit.

Now, the burden falls just as squarely the recipient, as the secondary holding Van Ardsdale, and the same day’s Popp v. Popp, demonstrate. It is a small sample to be sure, but the appellate scoreboard on reported cases for alimony payees seeking to extend alimony beyond “presumed” time limits is 0-2. In many cases, the answer will be the same for recipients as it used to be for obligors whose alimony check supported the household of not only the ex- spouse, but a new “friend” as well.

We are not at all criticizing that this burden shift has occurred. That is a policy question, and one properly reserved to the legislature. The old alimony system was, in many respects, out of control.

But, calling a major burden shift as a mere rule of evidence trivializes a very real and substantive change in our statutory law. And, it denies the everyday experience of litigants and their counsel, many of whom will not sue for alimony extensions, because presumptions are meant to be hard to overcome. And, expensive. And, risky.

Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


The Seven Sins of Alimony conciliation litigation family law mediation annulment med-arb family mediation Divorce fraud how baseball arbitration works family support rehabilitative alimony family and probate law disputes mediations mediation family law arbitrators divorce mediations lawyer-attended mediation separation MLB labor agreement Levine Dispute Resolution mediator arbitration divorce arbitration Divorce Agreements arbitrators high-risk methodology divorce and family law mediators Family Law Arbitration private dispute resolution General term alimony divorce agreement mediators Baseball Arbitration Massachusetts alimony Child Support Guidelines alimony statute special master med/arb Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly family law arbitrator divorce lawyers Baseball Players Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC alimony Massachusetts divorce lawyers Matrimonial Arbitration divorce mediator Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act divorce arbitrator Twinkies Boston lawyer health coverage Self-adjusting alimony orders divorced support orders IRC §2704 Cohabitation divorce mediation Chouteau Levine Alimony Reform Act medical benefits divorce and family law Levine Dispute Resolutions self-adjusting alimony facilitated negotiations alimony orders DOMA Massachusetts SJC divorce arbitrators alimony law divorce litigation Massachusetts lawyers Major League Baseball Arbitration resolve disputes family law Same Sex Marriage traditional negotiations Uniform Arbitration Act arbitrator LDRC alimony reform legislation Massachusetts divorce mediators disputes COLA dispute resolution divorce mediators Massachusetts alimony and child support divorce judgment Levine Dispute Resolution Center pre-ARA alimony Baseball lawyers health insurance child support Obamacare Defense of Marriage Act divorce process