781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

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


tags

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