781.708.4445

info@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

Just What is a “New Legal Consequence”?

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Not a Shifting Alimony Presumption, under Van Ardsdale v. Van Ardsdale

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

The crux of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) recent Van Ardsdale v. Van Ardsdale, is that the retroactive effect of durational limits under the Alimony Reform Act (eff. 3.1.12) (ARA) is constitutional because the imposition of these constraints is “merely” presumptive and, therefore, do not “attach new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment”.

We do not question precedent. While its comparison of a sex offender’s right to contest registration requirement for adjudications that occurred before the registry legislation, in Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. 3839 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., to alimony recipients’ right to seek deviation from the “presumed” durational limits is cringe-worthy, we get the analysis. Because the sex offender and the alimony payee both have some chance of eluding the impact of new legislation, the former by an appeal to the Board, and the latter by an “interests of justice” court deviation from alimony termination, the individual’s jeopardy is not foregone; therefore, it does not rise to the level of a “new legal consequence”.

Presumptions, the SJC reasons, are “simply rules of evidence”.

But, sometimes good legal analysis defies reality, or at least practicality.

Before ARA, the burden of proving changed circumstances to justify the termination of alimony sat squarely on the shoulders of the payor. Retirement? Just one circumstance to consider. Income loss? Well, maybe, but just how did that happen, anyway. Cohabitation of the recipient? Forgettaboutit.

Now, the burden falls just as squarely the recipient, as the secondary holding Van Ardsdale, and the same day’s Popp v. Popp, demonstrate. It is a small sample to be sure, but the appellate scoreboard on reported cases for alimony payees seeking to extend alimony beyond “presumed” time limits is 0-2. In many cases, the answer will be the same for recipients as it used to be for obligors whose alimony check supported the household of not only the ex- spouse, but a new “friend” as well.

We are not at all criticizing that this burden shift has occurred. That is a policy question, and one properly reserved to the legislature. The old alimony system was, in many respects, out of control.

But, calling a major burden shift as a mere rule of evidence trivializes a very real and substantive change in our statutory law. And, it denies the everyday experience of litigants and their counsel, many of whom will not sue for alimony extensions, because presumptions are meant to be hard to overcome. And, expensive. And, risky.

 

Massachusetts Alimony: Watching the Pot - Part 1

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

The number one preoccupation among Massachusetts divorce lawyers this year is trying to figure out how the appellate courts will construe many of the complex and interactive features of the year old comprehensive alimony “reform” statute. They hope that once this appellate pot boils, “guidance” will flow that will, in turn, give lawyers some sounder basis for predicting how trial judges’ discretion will be bounded and exercised in the future.

There are many uncertainties in the statutes, such as:

  1. How should judges apply their deviation authority to avoid alimony termination when very long marriages bump up against payors’ retirement age in an economic environment where people are working long past “retirement age”?
  2. Where judges perceive that new alimony cut-offs are unfair, how freely should they approach unequal property allocations as a form of compensation?
  3. Should judges “count” the time of temporary alimony orders towards calculated durational limits?
  4. Are judges expected to calculate alimony or child support first?

Will the cases come down in a trickle or a rush? Will the Supreme Judicial Court pre-empt the Appeals Court? Will the decisions be narrowly crafted, allowing for slow and thoughtful development; or will we see broader and a more rambling style of statutory construction? Will the “unreported”, or so-called “128” decisions of the Appeals Court have any coherence at all?

This important and fraught process will only start this year. Will it help or hurt? In our next two blog entries, we will think about this from two perspectives: that of a divorce mediator, and as a divorce arbitrator.


 

Divorcing Parties Playing Against Type - Don’t Do It

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

Recently, we spent a Sunday evening at a new Easthampton, MA business: a “free movie” venue called “Popcorn Noir”. This creative venture offers gourmet popcorn, snacks, dinner, hot cider; and intimate seating for 20 or so lucky viewers. Members pay a modest annual fee to have access to this storefront treasure with vintage films.

We watched the Billy Wilder-directed Fred McMurray and Barbara Stanwyck classic “Double Indemnity”, from 1944. A film student introduced the show with the comment that one thing that made this noir piece so effective was that every actor played “against type”. For those of us who grew up with McMurray on “My Three Sons” (most of us) knew exactly what she meant. She also described the coming feature as a tale of three people enmeshed in a spiral of events of mutual destruction, leaving them all dead.

This all got me thinking (after the show) about divorce mediation! Divorce lawyers like to tell prospective clients that criminal lawyers see bad people on their best behavior while family law clients are “good people at their worst”. This cliché is largely geared towards providing cover to the upset spouse for out-of-control feelings and decisions, but there is also truth to this stereotype. Many people react to the crucible of stress, worry and fear of impending divorce in ways that lead them to make quick decisions that yield far-reaching and long-term effects on families, sometimes quite negative. As friends and family urge the spouses to “protect” themselves (and their children) from each other, they are often inclined to accept the most aggressive lawyers and advice, and the most assertive processes that they can find..

Sometimes this advice is absolutely on the mark, and there is no good choice but to lawyer up and get to court. But, too often, this just sets a tone of heightened confrontation, crushing costs and lost years of litigation, when calm reflection and facilitated discussion might serve the family more effectively, leaving people in a place where their ability to cooperate is less damaged and sometimes even enhanced. There is a reason that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court requires lawyers to discuss alternative dispute resolution options with clients before filing suit,. But we suspect that this rule is honored far more in the breach that in its careful and enthusiastic observance, as many lawyers perceive litigation as the “only way” to go.

Good people in crisis should not play against type. Beginning divorce with an arms race when unnecessary consigns the family to a spiral of controversy and financial calamity, when reflection and facilitated negotiation are likely to be less expensive, less antagonistic and more constructive than the alternative. Divorce does not have to be all noir. It can be seen as a transition: to be managed and experienced as an honest, direct and personalized process in which people “play” themselves, and not the mythical “worst behavior” caricature.

Mediation is not for everyone. But, almost everyone should at least consider it – seriously.

 



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



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

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