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


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