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

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