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


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