Divorce Mediation Blog

Just What is a “New Legal Consequence”?

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Not a Shifting Alimony Presumption, under Van Ardsdale v. Van Ardsdale

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

The crux of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) recent Van Ardsdale v. Van Ardsdale, is that the retroactive effect of durational limits under the Alimony Reform Act (eff. 3.1.12) (ARA) is constitutional because the imposition of these constraints is “merely” presumptive and, therefore, do not “attach new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment”.

We do not question precedent. While its comparison of a sex offender’s right to contest registration requirement for adjudications that occurred before the registry legislation, in Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. 3839 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., to alimony recipients’ right to seek deviation from the “presumed” durational limits is cringe-worthy, we get the analysis. Because the sex offender and the alimony payee both have some chance of eluding the impact of new legislation, the former by an appeal to the Board, and the latter by an “interests of justice” court deviation from alimony termination, the individual’s jeopardy is not foregone; therefore, it does not rise to the level of a “new legal consequence”.

Presumptions, the SJC reasons, are “simply rules of evidence”.

But, sometimes good legal analysis defies reality, or at least practicality.

Before ARA, the burden of proving changed circumstances to justify the termination of alimony sat squarely on the shoulders of the payor. Retirement? Just one circumstance to consider. Income loss? Well, maybe, but just how did that happen, anyway. Cohabitation of the recipient? Forget about it.

Now, the burden falls just as squarely the recipient, as the secondary holding Van Ardsdale, and the same day’s Popp v. Popp, demonstrate. It is a small sample to be sure, but the appellate scoreboard on reported cases for alimony payees seeking to extend alimony beyond “presumed” time limits is 0-2. In many cases, the answer will be the same for recipients as it used to be for obligors whose alimony check supported the household of not only the ex- spouse, but a new “friend” as well.

We are not at all criticizing that this burden shift has occurred. That is a policy question, and one properly reserved to the legislature. The old alimony system was, in many respects, out of control.

But, calling a major burden shift as a mere rule of evidence trivializes a very real and substantive change in our statutory law. And, it denies the everyday experience of litigants and their counsel, many of whom will not sue for alimony extensions, because presumptions are meant to be hard to overcome. And, expensive. And, risky.

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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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