Divorce Mediation Blog

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN: PRE-ARA ALIMONY PAYORS CAN’T STOP PAYING AT RETIREMENT AGE JUST BECAUSE THE LAW CHANGED Chin v. Merriot, Rodman v. Rodman & Doktor v. Doktor Part 4 (Why is everyone so surprised?)

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

We return to the Supreme Judicial Court’s January 2015 alimony trifecta, because of comments that we have received since our 3 previous blog entries about these cases. Divorce lawyers are positively buzzing about the SJC’s rulings. We were critical of the cohabitation decision (Part 2) and fairly horrified by the downstream potential for wiping merger and survival distinctions from our practice (Part 3); but we were quite measured in our comment regarding the central question common to the cases: retirement age termination (Part 1).

Part of the reason was that the SJC had to make an important fairness decision about the retirement age question. One constituency (payors), or the other (payees), was going to pay the price for this binary outcome. Whether an SJC policy decision to protect pre-ARA recipients drove the court’s statutory construction, or if it emerged as its product, is a cart-and-horse question. We understood the fairness impact that resulted. They had to pick one.

What puzzles us now is why professionals in the field are shocked, as many are, by the retirement age decisions. Putting aside speculation about judicial motivations, we have to ask the question: if the legislature clearly and unequivocally intended that the retirement age termination provisions absolutely benefit pre-ARA alimony payors, it did not did not say so. In viewing the oral arguments (as we did), and in reading the statutory language, the only clear thing was that the payors’ advocates had to piece together disparate provisions in interpretive contexts, so as to construct and answer to their liking. They simply did not have the material to say:

    Here is the definitive dispositive language, Your Honors: “All alimony judgments, regardless of the date of their entry, shall be subject to M.G.L., ch. 208, §49(f). There is no contradictory language.”

If making retirement age termination universal were a signature legislative priority, the statute did not do a very good job of reflecting it. By giving the SJC two nuanced avenues from which to choose, and by making the point debatable, the legislature lost. This could have happened for any number of reasons, including:

  1. It was not a clear legislative priority (cue the protests of many of those involved with creating and shepherding the draft statute through the legislative process);
  2. The political process on Beacon Hill was just so fraught that in and among the various political pulls and tugs vagueness trumped specificity to get the deal done (wouldn’t be the first time);
  3. The bill was so sweeping in its reform scope that something was bound to go wrong in drafting (see, King v. Burwell and the unfolding fiasco about Medicaid subsidies on “state” health insurance exchanges);
  4. All of the above; or
  5. None of the above.

Whatever the reason, it happened. Be disappointed if you will; but don’t be surprised.

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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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