Divorce Mediation Blog

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.

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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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