Cavanagh v. Cavanagh - The Case, the Conundrum, & the Consequences Introduction by Nathaniel Butzke More than a year after its release, the Massachusetts SJC decision in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh (2002) remains a topic of discussion at every Massachusetts family law and mediation conference.  The decision had many ripple effects, still being felt on the beachhead of every divorce case involving child support or alimony. Following is an in depth review of the case and some of those effects. Introduction: In divorce proceedings, determining alimony awards is a complex process that requires careful consideration of various factors. Judges tasked with making these decisions must weigh the financial circumstances of both parties, ensuring that the supported spouse can maintain a lifestyle similar to that before the divorce, and children have access to similar households in either parents' care. However, interpreting the law governing alimony can present practical challenges, especially ...

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (President Trump's tax reform passed at the end of 2018) ended the alimony tax deduction for divorce agreements starting on January 1, 2019.  For an explanation of this tax law change see our previous post:  The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 Includes a Divorce “Penalty” . In Massachusetts our alimony statute includes a formula for calculating the maximum general term alimony in a divorce case.  However, this formula was created with the intention that alimony was tax-deductible to the payor and taxable income to the recipient.  Under §53 general term alimony is capped at the recipient’s “need” or 30-35% of the difference in the parties’ gross incomes.   Since the act was passed, the courts have clarified that “need” is a relative term and must reflect the parties' marital lifestyle in addition to other mandatory considerations contained in § 53(a).  For a more in depth analysis of the statute and subsequent cases, s...

by Valerie Qian & Justin L. Kelsey The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 defined what alimony is and how it should work in much greater detail than the prior law.  The Alimony Reform Act, 2011 Mass. Acts ch. 124. However, it also left many questions unanswered. In the six years since the Act became effective, on March 1, 2012, the courts have slowly been further clarifying, and in some cases arguably undercutting, the Act.  In this article, we will summarize the provisions of the Act and note the court cases that have affected the language of those sections. Alimony: What is it?  Alimony is defined in the 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.' Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208 §48 (2012) [hereinafter §48]. Since March 2012, the courts have made clear that this is how the law has defined alimony even prior to the Act, and the Act did not cha...

Alimony cases come with their complications, and the Alimony Reform Act raised may questions for people who already had alimony orders prior to 2012. As with any other element of domestic law, it truly runs on a case by case basis. To give you an idea, we will dive into two alimony cases that resulted in significant decisions for the parties involved. But before you head in full force, why don’t we take a moment to go over The Alimony Reform Act of 2011; it’s important to the story trust me. Though the act did not alter the definition of alimony, it did make adjustments to specific aspects such as the durational limits. In the act, it was decided that if a marriage lasted less than 20 years, there may be an option to terminate payments at a certain point. Now, let’s give some background on the couples shall we? Our first case, featuring Joanne M. Popp and Robert L. Popp , centers around a change in alimony payment due to cut wages. A huge factor in this case is the duration of th...

In Hoegen v. Hoegen, the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed whether it was a double dip to include restricted stock unit income in a child support order when those stocks had already been considered in the asset division.  The Appeals Court determined that the income should be included in the calculation, because the child support income definition is broad.  For more on that decision visit:  Income: What's In and What's Out when Calculating Child Support? In contrast to the child support guidelines, Massachusetts law on alimony specifically excludes income from previously divided assets: "When issuing an order for alimony, the court shall exclude from its income calculation: (1) capital gains income and dividend and interest income which derive from assets equitably divided between the parties under section 34..." MGL c. 208 § 53   This means that the RSUs addressed in the Hoegen case would not be included for alimony calculations.  But what about stock ...

The Alimony Reform Act  has led many to seek changes to their alimony orders and agreements.  The change from "lifetime alimony" was a driving force behind the Act, after all.  However, that doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to a change under the Act. In Demarco v. Demarco , the Appeals Court looks at a case where two parties reached an Agreement based on an assumption that the husband was entitled to a change under the Act.  That assumption was incorrect according to the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in Chin v. Merriot (and its two companion cases, Rodman & Doktor).   The recipient spouse in Demarco believed that this mistake required her case to be reopened, and the trial judge agreed.  Below is a recap of the timeline in this case: May, 2010  - The Demarco's get divorced, with an agreement that includes an alimony payment ( merged order ). Mar, 2012 - The Alimony Reform Act takes effect, and it includes a provision that alimony p...

The Alimony Reform Act  has led many to seek changes to their alimony orders and agreements.  The change from "lifetime alimony" was a driving force behind the Act, after all.  However, that doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to a change under the Act. In Demarco v. Demarco , the Appeals Court looks at a case where two parties reached an Agreement based on an assumption that the husband was entitled to a change under the Act.  That assumption was incorrect according to the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in Chin v. Merriot (and its two companion cases, Rodman & Doktor).   The recipient spouse in Demarco believed that this mistake required her case to be reopened, and the trial judge agreed.  Below is a recap of the timeline in this case: May, 2010  - The Demarco's get divorced, with an agreement that includes an alimony payment ( merged order ). Mar, 2012 - The Alimony Reform Act takes effect, and it includes a provision that alimony ...

On Friday, February 19, 2016, Massachusetts Representative John Fernandes filed House Bill HD4546  to override the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Chin v. Merriot, a case which marked the return of lifetime alimony in Massachusetts. Fox 25 News reported on the filing , and spoke with Steve Hitner , who was part of the Task Force that drafted the bill.  Steve, and many others (including the authors of this blog), believed the Alimony Reform Act of 2011 clearly allowed the modification of merged alimony orders in instances of retirement age or cohabitation.  However, the SJC read the Act to only allow application of these rules for post March 1, 2012 orders.  Unless the legislature acts, this means that there are different rules for pre-2012 and post-2012 alimony cases. HD 4546 would clarify the Act, by allowing modification of pre-2012 orders for cohabitation or for the payor reaching full social security retirement age.  If you wan...

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has decided another case interpreting   the Alimony Reform Act , that I will likely refer to as that "length of the marriage" case rather than trying to pronounce the actual name.  In Valaskatgis v. Valaskatgis , the Appeals Court was faced with the question of whether the Alimony Reform Act's definition for "length of the marriage" also applied to property division questions. Question:  Does Length of the Marriage (for Alimony)   =   Length of the Marriage (for Property Division)? Answer:   No. Why does it matter? The Alimony Reform Act defines length of the marriage as: "the number of months from the date of legal marriage to the date of service of a complaint or petition for divorce or separate support duly filed in a court of the commonwealth or another court with jurisdiction to terminate the marriage; provided, however, that the court may increase the length of the marriage if there is evidence that t...

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...

The Alimony Reform Act defines income to include all income as defined by the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines which clearly includes bonuses in the list of included income.   In Zaleski v. Zaleski , the SJC remanded the issue of alimony in part because the lower court did not include bonuses in the alimony calculation.  Bonus income, therefore, has to be addressed, but that does not mean it's easy to deal with. Bonuses often vary from year to year so basing a support amount on a specific number could result in an inequity to either the payor or recipient.  Making adjustments periodically presents its own problems as well, requiring a detailed agreement to ensure that the self-modifying calculations are simple enough to avoid future disagreement.  In addition, so-called self-modifying orders have been rejected by the SJC in Hassey v. Hassey , so this is only an option if parties are able to agree. While this is not a simple question, it doesn't mean you h...