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


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