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

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