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