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