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

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