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


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