Divorce Mediation Blog

Rule 1:28 Decisions: Something Has Got to Be Missing Graham v. Graham

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

We have often wondered about the wisdom of Rule 1:28, by which individual 3 judge panels of the Massachusetts Appeals Court issue case decisions that are not endorsed by the Appeals Court itself. The rule cautions that these cases are not to be used for precedential value but may be advanced for persuasiveness. Each decision bears a legend warning that it is primarily intended for the attention of the litigants themselves, and thus, may be include abbreviated facts. The latter point is particularly problematic in family law cases which are notoriously fact-specific and in which judges have broad discretion.

In the recent, and very brief opinion of Graham v. Graham, the panel upheld a contempt judgment and modification complaint dismissal of the Probate and Family Court. While the court addressed the modification gatekeeping provision of Section 5 to the Alimony Reform Act (eff. 3.1.2), we found the court’s explanation about why it upheld the trial judge’s financial findings about the husband’s income more interesting.

    According to the Appeals Court:

    In the first year of his newly founded [law] firm, the husband was responsible for eighty-nine percent of the firm’s earnings, yet he unilaterally decided to forego a salary. His new wife and law firm partner…however, received a salary.

The trial court called the husband’s representation of reduced income: “…nothing more than ‘creative bookkeeping’ ”; and the appellate panel called it “whimsy”.

The devil is always in the details, we have to wonder if something was missing from this summary account. Could Mr. Graham really have attempted to manipulate the facts so transparently, and with so little chance of success? If so, why would he have appealed and risked the public exposure of an appellate opinion? We are left thinking: there must be more to the story.

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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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