781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

Rehabilitative Alimony: Whatever Happened to Needs? Zaleski v. Zaleski, Part Two

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

In our last entry we introduced the SJC’s second case on the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act, eff. 3.1.12, in which it upheld a judgment of 5 years of rehabilitative alimony to the wife at the conclusion of a 16-year marriage. The sum of alimony in Zaleski v. Zaleski was $140,000 per year, 35% of the husband’s base salary. The SJC vacated this part of the judgment, requiring that alimony be recalculated to take into account that the husband’s overall employment income generally ran closer to or above $1 million annually.

In reaching this conclusion, the court examined the statutory provision that alimony (except reimbursement alimony) should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or 30 to 35% of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes, excluding income arising from the parties’ property as divided and income used to compute a child support award. In doing so, the SJC begged the question that we have raised previously here: did the legislature intend that “need”, the historical measure of maximum alimony before the new statute, be a “ceiling” on alimony going forward, or a “floor”. In other words, if the payor earns enough to provide support in excess of “need” by paying 30-35% of the income differential, should he or she be required to do so? Or, if 30-35% exceeds need, should need limit the award?

The SJC answer seems to be, “neither of the above”.

To be sure, the SJC issued Zaleski in the context of a marriage wherein the trial judge had found that the parties had “spent beyond their means”, and this led the court to distinguish between historical spending from “need”. Nonetheless, the SJC treated recipient need and the income differential percentage as independent measures: simply a menu from which a judge may pick to measure alimony under the circumstances presented. How does this square with decades of decisional law the preceded the new statute?

Ironically, on the facts of this case, the SJC decided that $140,000 per year of alimony was insufficient for the 5 years of rehabilitative alimony that it approved; while concluding in the same breath that her predicted re-entry into the workforce would make her “self-sufficient”. This, after the court did not fault the trial judge for declining to find that her income would likely reach $160,000 - $170,000 (noting that her historical base pay was $127,000-$130,000). Following this logic, and applying the same 35% measure that the trial judge used for a $1million payor income, alimony would be $350,000 while, predicted replacement income below $160,000 would constitute self-sufficiency, or one assumes, the elimination of “need”.

There is something fuzzy about the math, if not the logic. And, even assuming that the parties spent beyond their means, does leaving the husband with the capacity to do so and the wife with an undefined future income capacity that is perhaps 85% lower, pass a fairness test? Is there a functional difference between “need” when dependent and need when “self-sufficient”?

So where does Zalesky leave the law with regard to need-based alimony? Is this long-standing and assumed pillar of alimony now optional? Does it apply differently in short-term alimony than for general term alimony judgments? Is the standard for payment in rehabilitative alimony different than the measure of self-sufficiency that supplants it?

Next: Alimony in Massachusetts: Discretion “Unaffected”? Zaleski v. Zaleski, Part Three



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



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

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