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


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