Divorce Mediation Blog

“[T]he Parties Proceed at Their Own Risk” in the Probate and Family Court: Smith v. Smith

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

For decades, Massachusetts divorce lawyers have advised their clients that if they depart from their divorce judgment obligations informally, and don’t incorporate their new deal in a modification order or judgment, they cannot rely on their consensus alone if one of the party decides to enforce the divorce orders that still exist, in court. The Appeals Court now says that we have all been wrong, with the blazingly ironic “... the parties proceed at their own risk.”

In a court system and body of law with judicial discretion that sometimes takes the breath away, life just became even less predictable. As did advising clients.

In Smith v. Smith, the husband accumulated $87,400.00 of alimony arrearages but claimed that he did so with the wife’s advance agreement, sometimes in return for his taking on voluntary financial burdens for emancipated children. The wife eventually thought better of her purported compromises, and she sued. The Probate and Family Court judge bought the husband’s claim that he relied on the wife’s prior agreements to his detriment, rejecting the wife’s claim of coercion, and wiping out the husband’s arrearages.

For reasons not addressed in this entry, the Appeals Court reversed the Probate Court’s retroactive reduction of the husband’s alimony, but it upheld that trial judge’s ruling of non-contempt, because the wife’s consent precluded a finding that the husband’s violation of the alimony orders was “undoubted”. So much for the previously given truth that only the court can modify its own orders.

In support, the Appeals Court cited its own Wooters v.Wooters, a case in which the husband was relieved of a contempt finding, while the established an alimony arrearage nonetheless, because of a bona fide dispute about the meaning of the alimony order: did a divorce judgment that ordered a lawyer to pay his wife a third of his compensation apply to a stock option income, that didn’t exist at the time of divorce, but arose later, when the husband left law practice for a corporate job.

Readers can reasonably debate the Appeals Court’s conclusion in Wooters, but what does a legal dispute over the meaning of the previous order have to do with the Smith judgment, with orders of unquestioned meaning? In fairness, the Appeals Court’s citation was limited to the principle that an arrearage (they even called it a “violation”) need not compel a finding of contempt. Wooters to Smith is, at best, a non sequitor.

An important principle was at stake, here. Either parties can or cannot supplant the court’s authority by their own behavior. If they do, the violation cannot be doubted. The question, really should be “can it be excused?

The answer to the real question now appears to be a resounding “maybe”, as in “maybe they can”. In a field where lawyers struggle to give clear and assured advice, life just became more, rather than less, uncertain.

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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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