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


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