Divorce Mediation Blog

Rule 1:28 Decisions: Something Has Got to Be Missing Graham v. Graham

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

We have often wondered about the wisdom of Rule 1:28, by which individual 3 judge panels of the Massachusetts Appeals Court issue case decisions that are not endorsed by the Appeals Court itself. The rule cautions that these cases are not to be used for precedential value but may be advanced for persuasiveness. Each decision bears a legend warning that it is primarily intended for the attention of the litigants themselves, and thus, may be include abbreviated facts. The latter point is particularly problematic in family law cases which are notoriously fact-specific and in which judges have broad discretion.

In the recent, and very brief opinion of Graham v. Graham, the panel upheld a contempt judgment and modification complaint dismissal of the Probate and Family Court. While the court addressed the modification gatekeeping provision of Section 5 to the Alimony Reform Act (eff. 3.1.2), we found the court’s explanation about why it upheld the trial judge’s financial findings about the husband’s income more interesting.

    According to the Appeals Court:

    In the first year of his newly founded [law] firm, the husband was responsible for eighty-nine percent of the firm’s earnings, yet he unilaterally decided to forego a salary. His new wife and law firm partner…however, received a salary.

The trial court called the husband’s representation of reduced income: “…nothing more than ‘creative bookkeeping’ ”; and the appellate panel called it “whimsy”.

The devil is always in the details, we have to wonder if something was missing from this summary account. Could Mr. Graham really have attempted to manipulate the facts so transparently, and with so little chance of success? If so, why would he have appealed and risked the public exposure of an appellate opinion? We are left thinking: there must be more to the story.

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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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