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


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