Divorce Mediation Blog

Another Rehabiliative Alimony Case Highlights Important Issues, But Muddles “Needs” Further Vedensky v. Vedensky – Part 2

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The New Year began with the January 2d release of an alimony case, Vedensky v. Vedensky, by the Massachusetts Appeals Court. In our last entry, we reviewed several important aspects of the case that the appellate court addressed clearly and helpfully. We suggested that they could have, and should have stopped there, as addressing the question of the Husband’s needs was unnecessary – and we say problematic - in the way that they chose to do it.

Every alimony case requires a determination of needs of the recipient. This was true under statutory and case law before the Alimony Reform Act (eff.3.1.12); and it is no less true now. In earlier blog entries, we expressed concern about the direction of previous ARA cases, Hassey and Zaleski, in particular, on the matter of needs

In this case, the trial court found that the husband’s expenses exceeded his reported income by $525 per week. Yet the judge ordered the wife to pay him $635 of weekly alimony. Since the appellate judges were reversing on the question of the wife’s income anyway (see our previous entry) they need not have addressed this issue at all. But, instead, the Appeals Court examined what they identified as “alimony beyond stated needs” and concluded that the trial judge was justified in exceeding the husband’s claim of needs presumably because the judge was imposing new uninsured medical expenses on the husband because his judgment mandated psychological treatment during the 2-year period of alimony.

If the judge increased the husband’s expenses, that could certainly translate into higher need; and, the husband’s expenses then might be higher than that which he, himself, had claimed. In this highly unusual context, the Appeals Court’s conclusion that “A judge…is not bound strictly by the stated needs of an alimony recipient” is fair enough, but not so as a general statement of principle. In the critical early period of ARA case development, we fear that this broad brush will come back to the courts as a lever to further distance alimony determinations from the historical anchor of needs. In most cases most of the time, litigants should not expect that their alimony results will exceed their own, often self-serving, assessments of need; and the appellate courts should not imply otherwise.

In our last blog entry, we speculated on the potential impact of having general alimony law decided so heavily in short term rehabilitative alimony cases, and we worry that this case may be one example of that effect.

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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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