Divorce Mediation Blog

Wanted: An SJC Case to Challenge the “Real Advantage” Standard: Chief Justice Gants’ Compelling Concurrence in Miller v. Miller

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

Levine Dispute Resolution - Divorce Mediation

Concurrences are rare in family law cases, but when the Chief Justice writes a clear-eyed one with firm conviction, people take notice. C.J. Gants, with Associate Justice Gaziano joining him, did not take issue with majority’s decision, but rather the “analytical gymnastics” necessary to find it. They were right.

The source of the problem is less 1985’s Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannis, though that case alone has doomed the efforts of countless “non-custodial” parents to resist the removal of their children to other jurisdictions than the more problematic case of Mason v. Coleman (2006), or as the concurrence points out, the toxic intersection of the two cases.

It is Mason that undermined decades of effort in the Probate and Family Courts, and among its practitioners, to tone down the fight over custodial labels by fractious parties, by awarding access to the lower-bar “real advantage” removal test to parents with “sole physical custody”, setting up a two-stage fight in every potential removal case: first, does someone have sole physical custody (later modified to be a “functional” test rather than a legal label); and if so, are the childrens’ best interests driven by that individual parent’s personal needs?

It took the Miller case to put this problem into stark relief, presenting a matter where no labels, or functional findings, could have attached previously, since it was the time of divorce. Thus the court had to conclude, based on the messy life of an intact family, who would have been hypothetically denominated the physical custodian. A fiction on top of a fiction – and one that Judge Gants persuasively argues ought to end.

Whether the Mason problem is a product of a fundamental mis-perception of Yannis may be beside the point that both the Miller majority and concurring justice make: that the best interests of the child is meant to be the overarching inquiry for every removal case. For too long practitioners have accurately read the trial court’s predominant “read” of Yannis, namely, that the primary caregiver’s personal needs pretty much trump further inquiry, absent spousal spite, or a child who is too young to yet be bonded to the parent who would be left behind in Massachusetts.

Justice Gants’ point: artificial jousting over the label, or even the “functional” reality of primary caregiving, is too often confounded by informal parenting histories, by self-serving constructs and by too little historical precedent (as in Miller); and it does not serve the ultimate policy of finding and enhancing children’s outcomes via a straight up best interests inquiry. Rather, the exercise can range from pointless to damaging, by obscuring the true issues.

Justice Gants is also right that a primary care parent’s individual needs and interests cannot, and should not, be ignored. The certainly can be critical to a child’s interest; just not always so, and as often, not conclusively. We hope that the opportunity arises for the SJC majority to follow its Chief, as they may have signaled in Miller already, acknowledging but deferring the issue to another day and case, wherein one of the parties directly challenges, briefs and argues the issue on appeal.

We hope that that opportunity comes soon.


The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 9

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

“Fair balance of sacrifice?”

In Young v. Young, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) imported a concept that it had previously coined in the case of Pierce v. Pierce.

In the latter, the SJC reviewed (and upheld) a modification judgment of the Probate and Family Court in which the judge had reduced, but not terminated, the payor’s alimony obligation after he had voluntarily reduced his income, and his resulting ability to pay, finding that the reduction achieved a “fair balance of sacrifice” between the parties.

This modification concept followed an original divorce judgment which occurred without regard to any such construct. Rather, as a matter of law, the original alimony orders were necessarily based on the wife’s “need”, the husband’s ability to pay and what the divorce judge concluded to be “fair and reasonable”.

The Pierce court’s crafting of “fair balance of sacrifice” focused on the husband’s need to bear up under the circumstances of his own making, even if it felt to him as payor that he had paid quite enough alimony and he deemed the court’s modification judgment to be onerous in his current circumstances.

In the intervening years, the Alimony Reform Act (ARA) (eff. 3.1.12) introduced a formal range of maximum presumed alimony in M.G.L., ch. 208, §53(b) (since deemed the lawful and reasonable presumptive order by appellate case law), without any reference at all to the theme of “sacrifice”.

Rather, by comparing “need” to the maximum of 30-35% income differential, the legislature recognized that there is often not enough income in a case to sustain the marital station in two households, and formalized a longstanding practice of equitably sharing income, after presuming the tax leveraging of IRC §215 (which may or may not survive the 115the U.S. Congress). This is completely consistent with case law that establishes that a recipient has no guarantee of unchanged lifestyle, if the payor can’t provide it.

The equitable sharing of income can be a useful construct both in acknowledging that the parties can’t necessarily maintain the marital standard post-divorce; and in explaining why a payor will inevitably keep more of his or her income than the recipient will receive, because of the post-judgment efforts required to earn the money that funds spousal support.

But a “fair balance of sacrifice”? Where the vast bulk of divorce cases resolve with equal division of assets and debt, how can the same concept justify an unequal division of income, at the time of equitable distribution?

We are not advocating for the equal division of income, and it is not a result that will ever be required in our time. But was it helpful for the SJC to gratuitously introduce a standard that the legislature neither enunciated nor necessarily implied? Was it necessary support for its central outcome in Young? Will it now complicate cases with another subjective standard about which to fuss?

No, no and we’re afraid so.


The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 8

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

“Did stated intent of the
order trump the its effect?”

In Young v. Young, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) vacated the trial court judgment that awarded variable alimony based on a fixed percentage of the husband’s gross pre-tax compensation, based in part on its conclusion that it crossed the Alimony Reform Act (ARA) (eff. 3.1.12):

…[B]ecause [the order] was intended to award the wife an amount of alimony that exceeds her need to maintain the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage. (Italics ours)

By focusing on the intent of the order, we can only infer that the court was addressing the judge’s rationale for the order, instead of the order itself. That election matters, because it raises two questions:

  1. If the trial judge explained herself differently, might the SJC have upheld the judgment?
  2. If the SJC looked at the order in its full ramification, would it have impacted the outcome?

The actual support award in Young was bi-lateral, rising and dropping with the husband’s income, a fact eclipsed by the court’s sharp focus on intent. Thus, while the trial judge may have focused her analysis of the parties’ rising station, her order actually provided downside protection for the husband, too.

Had the judge expressed an intent to protect the husband in the event of income decline and stressed it concomitantly with the potential for “upside”, might the “intent” infirmity that the SJC seized upon been neutralized? Or, if the judge had found that a family with roller coaster income might experience corresponding lifestyle flux?

After all, as the SJC observed:

    There may also be special circumstances where an alimony award based on a percentage of the supporting spouse's income might not be an abuse of discretion, such as where the supporting spouse's income is highly variable from year to year, sometimes severely limiting his or her ability to pay, and where a percentage formula, averaged over time, is likely not to exceed the needs of the recipient spouse.

The SJC dealt with the former, but not the latter.


Why was the GOP out to get Alimony?

Monday, January 22, 2018

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

Well, they did it. In December, Congress repealed the alimony deduction, and as a result, support for divorce families will become more expensive and less generous, beginning in 2019.

Unbeknownst to us, the federal alimony deduction was on Republican chopping block wish list for a long time, with previous failed repeal attempts in 1984 and 2014. Few of us thought it important enough to the president or the GOP caucus to actually make it happen this time, especially when the senate bill did not mention it in its bill. Boy, were we wrong.

The question is: why?

To save majority lawmakers from having to reach actual consensus with Democrats, God forbid, by keeping the red ink caused by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act below $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, permitting a budget reconciliation maneuver and permitting passage on Republican votes only?

Whatever happened to simplification and revenue neutrality: watchwords of tax reform and Republican faith, for as long as memory serves? Not this Congress, and not this time.

But, really, how much did it help that cause? According to the House Ways and means Joint Committee on Taxation, repeal of the alimony deduction, upon which divorcing families have relied for three-quarters of a century, will “save” $8.3 billion from the aggregate deficit over 2018-2027. See here.

A drop in the bucket…

… especially in context. When a Fox Business reporter asked Treasury Secretary Mnuchin about the president’s abandonment of his campaign-guaranteed crackdown on carried interest preferences for private equity and hedge fund principals, which would have saved an estimated $100 billion over the same ten years, he blathered that, “…it’s not that much money…”. Really. Listen for yourself here.

So, we come back to “why”, if not budget reconciliation? Was it the moralism of Paul Ryan’s wing of the GOP, punishing divorcing families for their failings? If so, we are dangerously more like the theocratic regimes that our president loves to praise or castigate, depending on his momentary whim, than we like to believe.

In the meantime, families are the collateral damage. So much for family values.


The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 7

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

“Is ‘need’ a floor or a ceiling?”

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

This question does not rise from historic alimony law, which has long rested on the axiom that alimony exists to meet a recipient’s “needs”, as measured by the marital living standard.

But, the Alimony Reform Act (ARA) (eff. 3.1.12) created the question with its M.G.L., ch. 208, § 53(b), stating that general term alimony

    …should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or 30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes…” (Italics ours)

Since the lawmakers did not specify “the greater of” or “the lesser of”, judges and lawyers (and we, in earlier blog entries) have been left to speculate about whether “need” functions as a “floor” for support.

Since the appellate courts have now branded 53(b) as the range a “reasonable and lawful order”, this question was critical.

Where the payor’s income capacity is more than sufficient to meet the recipient’s “need”, should the latter enjoy “upside” alimony, even if that raises him or her above the marital station? Or, does the marital living standard cap the payor’s exposure?

We have consistently suspected the latter, and we have said so during many conciliation cases, since we did not believe that the legislature intended to upend the time-honored linkage to need. If anything, the ARA signaled a reining in of alimony, not its expansion. But given the vagaries our appellate courts, we braced for another surprise.

It didn’t happen.

The SJC spoke plainly:

    Here, the percentage-based award ran afoul of the act and therefore was an abuse of discretion not because of its variable nature but because it was intended to award the wife and amount of alimony that exceeds her need to maintain this lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage. (Italics ours)

Now, we know for sure: “need”, in the law, is a ceiling.


The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 6

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

“Not everyone can afford a special master”

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

Now, we will consider the role that financial complexity played in undermining the fate of the trial court decision in the Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) Young v. Young. The SJC reports that:

    …the [trial] judge found that, because of "the complex nature of [the husband's] compensation over and above his base salary and bonus," and because of "the constantly shifting nature of [the husband's] compensation," "it is reasonable and fair in the circumstances" to award alimony to the wife in the amount of thirty-three percent of the husband's gross income, rather than a fixed amount. (Italics ours)

The husband’s employment income arose from seven different compensation programs, including stock options, bonuses, investor entity units and discount stock purchase program opportunities. The various compensation modes featured differing consistencies, liquidity and transferability attributes, “…both considerable and variable”.

The SJC worried that the trial court’s self-adjusting alimony award (one-third of the husband’s gross pre-tax compensation) would lead to uncertainty of implementation, causing “continued strife” between the parties, citing the potential for inexact drafting and employer-employee collusion (to depress applicable income). The trial judge implicitly recognized the chance of future contention by appointing a special master, to keep the peace. Think: alimony coordinator.

The SJC deadpanned that: “Not everyone can afford a special master.”

If Mr. Young were simply a salaried employee, without the corporate power to manipulate his compensation, might the result have been different?


The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 5

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

“What’s a judge to do?”

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

In this entry, we consider a particular challenge that the trial judge will have on remand from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Young v. Young, in grappling with her assessment of the wife’s “need” for alimony. The trial judge tried to quantify the wife’s “need” by the tangible costs thereof, a common means of doing so. But, it appears that the evidence thwarted the judge in doing so, as she bumped up against a too frequent phenomenon: incredible and incredibly rising expense claims on sequential Rule 401 financial statements during litigation.

During an 11-month span of the Young case, the wife’s claims of weekly expense rose a remarkable 44%, from $453,856 per year to $653,906!

We have seen this movie before, as lawyers, judge, special master and divorce arbitrator. While it is certainly challenging for parties to give dispositive expense information when Rule 410 requires a full statement within 45 days, or when a party files motions, just 10 days. Moreover, uncertainty about just what “need” means, can make presenting financial statement expense claims dicey for the preparer.

Yet, litigation strategy plays an undeniable role. And, strategy evolves..

As a result, the judge critically found that the wife lacked “…personal knowledge regarding her own expenses,” and that her financial statements were not “…an accurate reflection of her need.” The wife’s credibility shot, the judge avoided the quantification of need and, instead opted for an ill-fated percentage-of-income order.

So, where the judge simply disbelieved the wife, and where she did not, apparently, find other, more convincing evidence of the wife’s “need” in the trial record (presumably there was no expert “lifestyle” testimony, or none at least that the court found credible), how will she do so now, on remand?

Don’t bet against a Young v. Young II appellate case, when one of these spouses appeals the judgment after remand.

In our next entry, we will consider the role that financial complexity played in undermining the fate of the trial court decision.


The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 4

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

“Marital station, when?”

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

In this entry, we will begin discussing how the Young case determines “need” in the context of alimony.

We have long known that need is a relative term. “The standard of need is measured by the ‘station’ of the parties -- by what is required to maintain a standard of living comparable to the one enjoyed during the marriage.” Grubert v. Grubert, 20 Mass. Ap. Ct. 811, 819 (1985).

This is sensible, given that marital station is fueled by the parties’ financial resources, generally income from employment or self-employment. For one couple, subsistence may characterize the marital standard; while country clubs, international travel and maybe even cash available for investment, might be necessary to grasp the breadth of a high income living standard.

In Young v. Young, the trial judge chose to characterize standard by observing that:

    The husband's substantial compensation package allowed the parties to enjoy an affluent, upper-class station in life and marital lifestyle during their marriage.

Critically, she did not “…make a finding regarding [the wife’s] actual weekly or annual expenses or needs.”, as seemingly required by Grubert’s “what is required” mandate. (More on this is a later blog entry.)

The case does not disclose whether or not the judge looked at this question with a temporal focus, yet it is something that we have always found to be unclear in our law. After all, “during”, without more, seems to cover an entire marital span, in this case, 24+ years.

In many cases, the parties separate at their highest income level, when careers are successful and linear. But, what of couples with variable living standards because of industry volatility, entrepreneurial cycle, episodic illness or simple luck (good or bad)? How to measure their marital living standard?

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) approached this problem in Young for reasons that are not apparent, since there was no evidence recited beyond the expectation of unceasing rise of standard. The SJC had touched on it in Pierce v. Pierce, 455 Mass. 286, 296 (2009), which the Young court summarized as

    … [T]he recipient spouse’s need for support is generally the amount needed to allow the spouse to maintain the lifestyle you were she enjoyed prior to termination of the marriage. (Italics ours)

“Prior to” implies, at least, that trial judges should look to a timeframe that is somehow proximate to divorce, and the Young court looked approvingly to a treatise, stating:

    [S]ee also 1 Lindey and Parley on separation agreements and antenuptial contracts §22.63[2][e] (2d ed. 2017) (‘standard of living experienced during the several years before the divorce [is] relevant for alimony determination is pre-separation standard of living)… (Italics ours)

And yet, at Footnote 8, the Young case states:

    In light of this conclusion, we need not address the husband's argument that the judge was clearly erroneous in finding that the husband's income will continue to grow on an "upward trajectory." Even if it did, the wife's alimony would still be limited to the amount needed to allow her to continue to live the lifestyle she enjoyed at the end of the marriage. (Italics ours)

So, which is it? At the least, the SJC’s mixed signals may open the door to living standard evidence that is broader than simply that which existed on the eve of divorce, inviting evidence that might have been excluded previously on relevancy grounds, and it may allow the courts to take account of the more volatile, or inconsistent at least, economic fact patterns, which probably makes good sense.

Think: a high standard that dips late in marriage, or a lower one that spikes at the end. Giving the trial judge access to broader evidence suggests concomitant discretion in the ultimate marital standard finding.

As divorce mediators, we think it is good to encourage parties to look at the “need” question more openly; and as family law arbitrators and masters, it is instructive to know that SJC recognizes the possibility at least that “station” evidence need not be static in appropriate circumstances.

In the next entry, we will discuss a particular challenge that the trial court with have on remand in the Young case.


GOP Plan to End Alimony Deductibility: Time to reform the Alimony Reform Act?

Monday, November 20, 2017

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

The House GOP seems to think that repealing §215 of the Internal Revenue Code is a good idea. We have long believed that there are probably too many alimony-paying lawyers in Congress to let this day ever come. It probably won’t, but if it does, it will plunge the Alimony Reform Act (ARA) (eff. 3.1.12) into crisis. Either way, the legislature needs to respond.

M.G.L., ch. 208, §48 defines “alimony” as: “the payment of support from a spouse, who has the ability to pay, to a spouse in need of support for a reasonable length of time, under a court order”. Nothing about tax impact. The drafters, like us, clearly took deductibility under federal and state law for granted.

Moreover, M.G.L., ch. 208, §53(b) defines a “reasonable and lawful” presumptive formulation for general term alimony, stating the general term alimony should generally not exceed the recipient needs, or 30-35% of the difference between the parties’ applicable gross incomes.

This statutory range makes the same once-safe assumption: that IRC §215 allows parties to leverage dollars to the family’s benefit, by shifting income tax from a higher progressive tax rate of the payor, to the payee’s lower rate.

If the alimony deduction dies, it will take the viability of §53(b) along with it. Yet, the zombie statute will persist, entitling litigants to rely on it, despite its infirmity; unless and until the state legislature takes corrective action. This will not happen overnight – these things never do – and in the meantime… Sophisticated divorce agreements have “savings” clauses, which help people adjust alimony sums in the unlikely event of a deductibility repeal, and the GOP plan grandparents existing judgments, at least until modification. But modification cases and new divorces won’t get off so easy.

Maybe, the legislature should take the GOP proposal as a warning shot, at least. The legislature could act pre-emptively. Sections 48 and 53(b) at least need reformulation, regardless of Congress’ ultimate action. We should convert the assumption of the tax-shifting leverage of continued deductibility for alimony into a clear predicate for the ARA, with provisions to address the alternative.

And, if the unthinkable happens, it’s better get started now.


The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 3

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

What did the court decide and why; and might it have decided differently?

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

Here, we delve into the SJC’s analysis in Young v. Young.

Young was high income case, in which the husband’s executive compensation fueled a persistently rising lifestyle (“affluent, upper class”) for the parties during a 24-year marriage. Both parties sought fixed sum alimony in the wife’s favor, but at broadly disparate levels.

After trial, the Probate and Family Court judge concluded that the wife’s sworn representation of the costs required to maintain the marital station (i.e., her “need”) was unreliable; and that the husband’s compensation scheme (i.e., his capacity to pay) was complex, not clearly predictable, but implicitly at least, likely to maintain an upward trajectory.

Critically, the judge did not quantify the wife’s “need” in a finding. Instead, the opinion suggests, the trial court defined the marital living standard as an intangible expectation of rising station, supported presumably by family history, and with no apparent end in sight.

In light of her findings, the trial judge rejected both parties’ alimony proposals, and ordered the husband to pay the wife 1/3 of his gross income derived from his work compensation in its various forms, with neither a base guarantee for the wife (floor) nor an upper limit for the husband (ceiling). Recognizing that the judgment would leave the parties in a thicket of disclosure, verification, enforcement and potential conflict, the judge imposed a special master to address future conflicts, at the parties’ expense. Think, alimony coordinator. (More on that in a later blog entry.)

The husband appealed, and prevailed, when the SJC vacated the formulaic alimony award and remanded to the trial court to re-cast the alimony obligation as a fixed sum. The core rulings are neither complex nor novel on their face. They are:

  1. Variable or self-adjusting alimony orders are not per se prohibited, but they are to be limited to “special”, though not necessarily “extraordinary”, circumstances; and that
  2. Self-adjusting alimony orders that “intend” to elevate the recipient spouse’s standard of living above the marital station are prohibited.

Now, just what are “special circumstances”? We are tempted to emulate the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and say that we would know them when we see them, but to date, we only know of two examples, both noted by the Young court:

  1. An alimony recipient living in a foreign land during high inflationary times, with a self- adjusting cost-of-living increase that is intended to protect the value of an alimony order that is a sum, per Stanton-Abbott v. Stanton-Abbott, 372 Mass. 814 (1977); and
  2. An alimony payor who is ill at the time of divorce, with depressed earnings for a period of recovery, and the expectation of resumed earnings that are closer to the marital experience, when health returns, per Wooters v. Wooters, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 929 (1997).

The paucity of fact precedent has long made trial judges reluctant to even consider variable support awards, and we expect that the Young decision won’t likely change this institutional reticence. As we discuss below, we see this as unfortunate.

In the meantime, what of the marital station? The SJC’s emphasis on recipient “need” is both deeply entrenched in our law, and unsurprising. After all, need and ability to pay have long been the accepted pillars of spousal support. But we wonder several things:

  1. What if the trial court had made a traditional finding of “need”, expressed as a dollar amount required to meet it;
  2. What if she had made a finding that even at the rarefied level of Young finances, when following the 30-35% range of a “reasonable and lawful” alimony order (Hassey v. Hassey, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 518 (2014)), the wife could not live at the marital standard formerly funded when the parties lived as one household?
  3. What if the trial court had quantified “need”, and capped the amount that the Wife could have received by application of the percentage formula, at that level?

Would these counterfactuals have led the SJC to find that the orders were not “intended” to exceed to wife’s recovery beyond the marital standard? After all, the Young court stated, with credit to both Stanton-Abbott and Wooters, that:

    [We] reject the argument, as we have before in a different context, that a judge lacks statutory authority to order a supporting spouse to pay alimony in an amount that may vary according to variables or contingencies set forth in the order, such as the income of the supporting spouse…


    [We] do not consider every change in the amount of payment under such an alimony order to be a modification of the judgment, which we recognize would require a showing "by the party favorably affected the conditions [have] changed justifying the modification” …


    [T]here may also be special circumstances where an alimony award based on a percentage of the supporting spouse's income might not be an abuse of discretion, such as where the supporting spouse's income is highly variable from year to year, sometimes severely limiting his or her ability to pay, and where a percentage formula, averaged over time, is likely not to exceed the needs of the recipient spouse.


    Here, the percentage-based award ran afoul of the act and therefore was an abuse of discretion not because of its variable nature but because it was intended to award the wife an amount of alimony that exceeds her need to maintain the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage. (Italics ours)

If those findings had been made, we think they could, and should have, held differently.

Interestingly, the SJC did not comment upon the fact that the Young percentage-based support award also protected the husband from the very danger noted above: that his income might dip (it generally does at some point), and “severely limit his ability to pay” support commensurate with the marital standard. Had this been noted by the judge, might the SJC been more sparing in its critique? Maybe.

The primary purpose of an SJC case is to determine if there was error in the case before it, and secondly, but not necessarily secondarily, to create precedent for future cases. For every Young case, the trial court will encounter thousands of cases in which the marital station is in no way attainable on a 30-35% alimony award, and in which the court could carefully craft orders that meet all of the SJC’s concerns discussed above, without consigning the courts and the parties to serial modification actions.

In this respect, the Young decision represents a missed opportunity, in our view.

Finally, the SJC noted that variable support orders can lead to contention because of poorly worded criteria and complex compensation schemes. Correctly, the Young court pointed to the trial court’s appointment of an alimony coordinator (our term) to police the judgment; an unauthorized and unaffordable solution for most couples (though, ironically, affordable for thee parties). The court also lamented that formulaic orders could encourage fraud, and collusion between employers and employee alimony payors.

These are real concerns, but ones that exist in every case, regardless of the support structure, and based on this rationale, the trial courts should not accept settlements with self-adjusting formulae, which they properly do every day. It is equally lamentable, that the SJC does not apparently deem the bench and bar capable of proposing and adopting high quality judgments. We fear that this aspect of the case is rejecting the good because it is not perfect.

In our next entry, we will discuss the Young case treatment of determining how to determine “need” and the trial court’s particular challenge in this case to do what the SJC has ordered with respect thereto.


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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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