781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

Unusual Alimony Strategies in the Wake of Snow v. Snow

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Imagine with us for a moment.

You represent the lower earning spouse whose income is insufficient to fully meet his lifestyle needs. His job is insecure, but not enough to convince the judge to discount it as best evidence of earning capacity. Or, his spouse’s earnings curve is ascending, with the resulting potential for a greater alimony award for your client, if only the alimony determination were made, not now, but later. The presumed durational alimony limit is 7 years, and the potential payor is 15 years shy of social security retirement age. So, your client can play for up to 8 years’ time before his spouse’s retirement age threatens the presumed maximum term.

Do you have your client disclaim alimony at the divorce trial?

Or, you represent the higher earner. She knows her income prospects are rising, and she takes spouse’s griping about job insecurity as a smokescreen for his wish to walk away from a steady but unpleasant occupation. He signals that he is not going to ask for alimony at trial.

Do you demand that your client have the right to begin paying alimony immediately?

Both sound far-fetched, but less so after the Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) Snow v. Snow, released, as our old friend Jessica Dubin noted, on a recent snow day in Boston.

In Snow, the SJC decided that alimony durational limits do not begin to run until a judgment that affirmatively orders alimony enters (subject to Holmes exceptions); hence, if a divorce judgment does not include alimony, but alimony orders arise from a subsequent modification judgment, the durational clock does not start until the later judgment.1

In other words, disregard the procedural labels. A modification judgment that initiates alimony is an initial judgment for alimony purposes; so, the plaintiff need not show changed circumstances; and he can still demand the full presumed maximum durational term.

We could quibble about the substance of the decision itself. Do you think that the legislature intended this result when M.G.L., ch. 208, §53(g) (if child support alone, or unallocated support is ordered at divorce, the durational clock on alimony runs from that judgment, despite the absence of alimony orders) dictates the opposite?

But, to us, the counterintuitive incentives that Snow sets up are more interesting.

When was the last time that you advised a client to demand the privilege of paying alimony when tax leverage was not at stake? Or, to decline it when it is there for the taking?

And either client’s likely reply?

“What are you nuts?”

Maybe not after this particular Snow day.


1Query whether this new rule would apply to a merging separation agreement that actually recites that the parties are waiving past and present, but not future, alimony.

 

Top 25 Ways in Which Our Current National Government is Like Divorce Litigation

Wednesday, February 08, 2017

  1. Both can last up to four years, eight with appeals.
  2. Both can feel a lot longer – and the effects will outlast it.
  3. Facts are often “alternative facts”.
  4. Objective truth is aspirational.
  5. Memory is selective.
  6. Transparency is an illusion.
  7. Ad hominem is de riguer.
  8. Spokesmen never get the message quite right.
  9. “Zealous” is conflated with “blind”.
  10. Sound and fury signifies nothing…but doesn’t stop anyway.
  11. Ethics are situational.
  12. “Approval” is conflated with effectiveness.
  13. Volume exceeds quality.
  14. Yes-men (and women) abound.
  15. People want more service for less cost.
  16. Positions over-ride interests.
  17. The person who has the last word thinks s/he will win the argument.
  18. The person who speaks the loudest thinks s/he will win the argument.
  19. A good judge is one who agrees with the client.
  20. A good decision is one that agrees with the lawyer.
  21. Cost-benefit analysis is rare.
  22. Efficiency is a second – or third thought.
  23. Hypocrisy abounds.
  24. Victimhood abides.
  25. The best interests of the children/population often get lost.

 



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



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

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