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


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