The Appeals Court ruled, in Pisano v. Pisano , on numerous issues involving a bifurcated trial, a prenuptial agreement, temporary alimony and family loans.  The primary issues in the case all could have been prevented by inclusion of clear provisions in the Prenuptial Agreement.  This is not a criticism of the drafters, because in many instances the soon to be married couple don't want to deal with these types of specifics.  However, this case demonstrates the importance of clear and thoughtful decision-making and drafting when creating a Prenuptial Agreement. 1. Trial Judge's determination that the Prenuptial Agreement excludes income derived from separate assets from consideration of alimony - UPHELD. While the prenup did not explicitly say "income from separate assets is excluded from the calculation of alimony" as clearly as it could have, the appeals court upheld this decision finding that the language of the prenup clearly intended to exclude income from s

Guest Post by Beth Aarons , a Mediator and Collaboratively trained attorney who is of counsel to Skylark Law & Mediation, PC and who also has her own practice in Newtonville .  Beth is available for consultation on adoptions , like the one discussed below: In a recent slip opinion Adoption of a Minor, SJC-11797 , the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) determined that a known sperm donor of a child born to a married same-sex couple is not a legal parent of the child who would be entitled to notice of the child’s adoption. J.S. and V.K., two women legally married to each other, conceived a child through artificial insemination with a known sperm donor.  The child’s birth certificate names J.S. and V.K. as the legal parents and to protect their rights they sought to jointly adopt their son to ensure equal recognition of their parentage outside of Massachusetts.  The Probate and Family Court declined to allow the adoption to proceed absent legal notice to the sperm donor

There is a design principle in engineering that was made popular by the U.S. Navy in the sixties called "Keep It Simple, Stupid"  or KISS for short.  The KISS principle is about valuing simplicity in design in order to make things less likely to break and easier to fix when they do break.  As a fan of this principle, I was very impressed with Rackham Karlsson's recent blog post:  Collaborative Divorce in the Simplest Terms Possible  in which he does just that, explains Collaborative Divorce as simply as possible. Rackham's post has inspired me to try and explain the work I do in the simplest terms possible using the KISS principle and the Up-Goer Five Text Editor , a site that forces you to explain an idea using only the 1000 most used words in the English language. Here is a typical explanation of what I do: In my work I encourage clients to settle disputes outside of court, whether through collaborative law, mediation, or other other out-of-court processes, by

In Reed v. Reed , a recent unpublished (Rule 1:28) decision, the Appeals Court provided a summary of the current definition of need in Massachusetts.  Alimony is defined in  the Alimony Reform Act  as "the payment of support from a spouse, who has the ability to pay, to a spouse in need of support for a reasonable length of time, under a court order."  This means that need is one of the three main components of alimony and when it comes to calculating alimony: Need "is not based on the minimum life necessities of the spouse, but rather is measured by 'the amount necessary to support a spouse in a manner consistent with the marital life-style.'" Reed   quoting Zaleski v. Zaleski For general term alimony, the most typically awarded type of alimony, the statute also limits the amount of alimony to "generally not exceed the recipient's need or 30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties' gross incomes established at the time of the o