Divorce Mediation Blog

The SJC Weighs in on Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders and Recipient “Need”: Young v. Young, Part 9

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

“Fair balance of sacrifice?”

In Young v. Young, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) imported a concept that it had previously coined in the case of Pierce v. Pierce.

In the latter, the SJC reviewed (and upheld) a modification judgment of the Probate and Family Court in which the judge had reduced, but not terminated, the payor’s alimony obligation after he had voluntarily reduced his income, and his resulting ability to pay, finding that the reduction achieved a “fair balance of sacrifice” between the parties.

This modification concept followed an original divorce judgment which occurred without regard to any such construct. Rather, as a matter of law, the original alimony orders were necessarily based on the wife’s “need”, the husband’s ability to pay and what the divorce judge concluded to be “fair and reasonable”.

The Pierce court’s crafting of “fair balance of sacrifice” focused on the husband’s need to bear up under the circumstances of his own making, even if it felt to him as payor that he had paid quite enough alimony and he deemed the court’s modification judgment to be onerous in his current circumstances.

In the intervening years, the Alimony Reform Act (ARA) (eff. 3.1.12) introduced a formal range of maximum presumed alimony in M.G.L., ch. 208, §53(b) (since deemed the lawful and reasonable presumptive order by appellate case law), without any reference at all to the theme of “sacrifice”.

Rather, by comparing “need” to the maximum of 30-35% income differential, the legislature recognized that there is often not enough income in a case to sustain the marital station in two households, and formalized a longstanding practice of equitably sharing income, after presuming the tax leveraging of IRC §215 (which may or may not survive the 115the U.S. Congress). This is completely consistent with case law that establishes that a recipient has no guarantee of unchanged lifestyle, if the payor can’t provide it.

The equitable sharing of income can be a useful construct both in acknowledging that the parties can’t necessarily maintain the marital standard post-divorce; and in explaining why a payor will inevitably keep more of his or her income than the recipient will receive, because of the post-judgment efforts required to earn the money that funds spousal support.

But a “fair balance of sacrifice”? Where the vast bulk of divorce cases resolve with equal division of assets and debt, how can the same concept justify an unequal division of income, at the time of equitable distribution?

We are not advocating for the equal division of income, and it is not a result that will ever be required in our time. But was it helpful for the SJC to gratuitously introduce a standard that the legislature neither enunciated nor necessarily implied? Was it necessary support for its central outcome in Young? Will it now complicate cases with another subjective standard about which to fuss?

No, no and we’re afraid so.

Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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