781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

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


tags

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