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