781.708.4445

info@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

Needs versus 30-35% in Section 53(b): In Its First Foray, Has the Appeals Court Legislated? Hassey v. Hassey, Part Two

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

In the recent case of Hassey v. Hassey, the Appeals Court reversed Judge Jeffrey A. Abber of the Essex Probate and Family Court, in part, for ordering alimony as a percentage of the husband’s ongoing income, that was nearly 41% of the payor’s gross income. In suggesting that the award was excessive, the justices examined M.G.L., chapter 208, section 53(b) which states that except as noted: “…alimony should generally not exceed the recipients need or 30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes…

Since enactment, we have wondered how the appellate courts would construe the linkage between needs (the historical limit on alimony) and the percentage range imitation. Predictably, and we suspect correctly, the Appeals Court stressed the requirement for trial judges to explicitly make findings of recipient needs, particularly in view of the trial court’s discretion to deviate from the section 53(b) limits for defined reasons in section 53(e). Certainly fair enough.

But, why then did the Appeals Court take the additional step of opining that:

    …an alimony award that is equivalent to thirty to thirty-five per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes as determined when the order issues will be deemed reasonable and lawful. (Our italics.)

Was this statement necessary to the appellate court’s conclusion that the trial judge’s order was unsupported by sufficient findings? Is it supported by section 53(b) or any other language in the omnibus alimony law? Does this conclusion arise from any appellate precedent? We don’t think so, on any count.

Just, how does the legislature’s expression of a maximum become the new range of reason and lawfulness to the appellate court?

Does this mean, despite its conclusions to the contrary, that needs (however elastically defined) are no longer the ceiling for alimony? As in, if needs are found to be $50,000 per year, is alimony of $150,000 per year is “reasonable and lawful” when a payor earns $450,000? This may be a “fair” result, certainly one that is consistent with common practice, but does it comport with the statute?

We don’t have a dog in the hunt, as we do not represent any clients, neither payors nor payees. But, as divorce mediators and as divorce arbitrators, we are concerned that the Hassey court has read a very substantive change into the statute, which will make it more difficult for us to inform mediation couples about the state of the law, and as arbitrators and masters, to apply the law.

We understand the appellate courts’ desire to provide guidance to future litigants, but exceeding the scope of that which is necessary to decide the case before it certainly tempts the forces of unintended consequences, as we fear has occurred here.

Next: They Got A Lot Right: Hassey v. Hassey, Part Three



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



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

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