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


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