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


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