781.708.4445

info@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

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