Divorce Mediation Blog

They Got A Lot Right: Hassey v. Hassey, Part Three

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

In our last two blogs, we took the Appeals Court to task for inconsistency and over-reaching as we saw it, but we should not let it go without acknowledging what the Court got right:

  1. The trial judge terminated alimony for “retirement as defined in the [alimony] act.” The Appeals court hewed to the statutory language that absent a defined deviation, alimony stops at a specific retirement age, and not necessarily at actual retirement, before or after. Under the law, a person can work beyond retirement age and pay no alimony, unless a judge explicitly rules otherwise in conformity with criteria set forth in the statute.
  2. Where the trial court ordered the husband to disclose his income periodically to the wife in furtherance of his sliding alimony order, the Appeals Court ruled this an abuse of discretion, because it gave the wife free information about the husband’s changing circumstances while denying the same to the husband, about the wife. (This will likely not impact the parties since the Appeals Court vacated the percentage arrangement, which, in all likelihood, will cause Judge Abber to drop the disclosure provision, too).
  3. Findings of needs, as stressed in this decision, absolutely, are a critical component of alimony law, common and statutory; and the “new” alimony law underscores the practice, rather that reducing it.
  4. On property, the trial court excluded the wife’s family of origin-derived vacation home from property division calculation, while not excluding any part of the husband’s partially family of origin-derived dental practice. The appellate panel reversed on this point, being unconvinced by the trial judge’s conclusion that the vacation home was “never relied on as a financial resource” by the family; pointing out that the family’s habitual use of the property during the marriage was, in fact, a form of financial reliance that was worthy of consideration in weighing the equities of exclusion or inclusion in the section 34 distribution numbers.

The Appeals Court also noted, twice, that Judge Abber was dealing with an extraordinarily complex statutory scheme with little or no appellate guidance, a departure from the too frequent practice of appellate courts speaking uncharitably about the efforts of their trial court colleagues. They certainly got that right.

Go Back to “Self-Modifying” Divorce Judgments: The Appeals Court Feels Strongly Both Ways. Hassey v. Hassey, Part One

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

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


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