781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 7

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

“Is ‘need’ a floor or a ceiling?”

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

This question does not rise from historic alimony law, which has long rested on the axiom that alimony exists to meet a recipient’s “needs”, as measured by the marital living standard.

But, the Alimony Reform Act (ARA) (eff. 3.1.12) created the question with its M.G.L., ch. 208, § 53(b), stating that general term alimony

    …should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or 30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes…” (Italics ours)

Since the lawmakers did not specify “the greater of” or “the lesser of”, judges and lawyers (and we, in earlier blog entries) have been left to speculate about whether “need” functions as a “floor” for support.

Since the appellate courts have now branded 53(b) as the range a “reasonable and lawful order”, this question was critical.

Where the payor’s income capacity is more than sufficient to meet the recipient’s “need”, should the latter enjoy “upside” alimony, even if that raises him or her above the marital station? Or, does the marital living standard cap the payor’s exposure?

We have consistently suspected the latter, and we have said so during many conciliation cases, since we did not believe that the legislature intended to upend the time-honored linkage to need. If anything, the ARA signaled a reining in of alimony, not its expansion. But given the vagaries our appellate courts, we braced for another surprise.

It didn’t happen.

The SJC spoke plainly:

    Here, the percentage-based award ran afoul of the act and therefore was an abuse of discretion not because of its variable nature but because it was intended to award the wife and amount of alimony that exceeds her need to maintain this lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage. (Italics ours)

Now, we know for sure: “need”, in the law, is a ceiling.



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



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

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