The Case of Teddy Bear: A Legal Tug of War Over a Pomeranian by Nathaniel Butzke   Photo by  Fred Moon  on  Unsplash     The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently made a notable decision in an intriguing legal battle involving former romantic partners and a Pomeranian named Teddy Bear. The case,  Lyman v. Lanser , takes us through the complexities of shared possession of a jointly owned pet. The heart of the dispute was whether the parties’ agreement to share Teddy Bear equally could be legally enforced, an agreement similar to custody arrangements that we typically see concerning children.      Lyman and Lanser's story began with a mutual decision to purchase Teddy Bear in 2018. They followed a pattern of shared pet ownership and agreement to share custody should they separate. When the relationship ended in 2021, they managed to share Teddy Bear amicably. The conflict escalated when Lanser ceased communication and denied Lyman access to...

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...

We are very excited to announce that on December 10, 2018, Valerie Qian will begin a position in the Circuit Executive's office at the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  While this departure will prevent Valerie from continuing to represent and mediate for Skylark's clients, we want to wish her the best of luck in this new endeavor. Valerie's Message: After more than five and a half years, I will be leaving Skylark Law & Mediation, where I have been since the days we were still called Kelsey & Trask and our offices were located in Framingham. I am sad to be leaving the team after so long. I've learned a lot here from Justin, Melissa, Beth, Julie and Jen and others from the team who have moved on over the years, and will look back with fond memories at the time I've spent here. I'll be moving on to a position in the Circuit Executive's office at the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and commuting to Bos...

Guest Post from Valerie Qian* Does it make a difference for my legal rights if my spouse and I lived together before we got married? The lawyerly answer, which I know is one most people can’t stand, is “it depends.” The Bortolotti v. Bortolotti case, a 1:28 unpublished decision that came down from the Appeals Court in April 2018, sheds some more light on this situation. The relevant statute, M.G.L. c. 208 §48 , provides that the legal length of a marriage may be extended by periods of cohabitation if the parties had an “economic partnership” during these periods of cohabitation. The Bortolotti decision clarifies that “economic partnership” exists both in situations where both parties contribute income to the household, and in situations where one party may be economically dependent on the other. The decision further notes that when a judge exercises her discretion to exclude premarital assets from the marital estate, she should use a valuation of those assets at the time of the ...

Guest Post from Julie Tolek * In the recent case of Smith v. Smith (17-P-765) , the Appeals court upheld a finding of not guilty of contempt of disobeying a court order to pay alimony, but vacated and remanded as to the retroactive modification of alimony made by the trial Judge due to the parties' verbal agreements, stating that retroactive modification of alimony requires findings “reflecting [the judge’s] consideration of all the factors mandated by” the statute. quoting Pierce v. Pierce, 455 Mass. 286 (2009). After a divorce which included an order for the husband to pay alimony, the parties agreed among themselves that the husband would pay less than the amount of alimony in their separation agreement. Relying on this agreement, the husband contributed financially to various expenses for his emancipated children, including payment toward a wedding, down payments for two of his children’s houses, and payment toward liabilities. After receiving a letter from the Wife’s att...

With the release of the updated 2017 Child Support Guidelines , everyone is talking about how the new guidelines will change current child support orders. Right at the cusp of the child support alteration was a case in the middle of the child support debate around court v. self-modification of child support orders: Calabria v. Calabria, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 763 - Mass: Appeals Court 2017.   In Calabria, the stipulations in the initial separation agreement of the couple in question were as follows: “The parties agree that upon any change in his or her employment of income he or she shall immediately notify mother/father of the change, the child support will be reviewed. This Wife is currently unemployed. The Husband’s income has been cut in half. Both parties are obligated to notify the other upon any change of employment or salary status. Parties agree to immediately seek to modify the child support obligation and said modification to be retroactive to the change of employ...

It is a common refrain that support payments are usually more than the payor wants to pay and less than the recipient wants to receive.  This discrepancy can be extreme when the parties have been used to a particular lifestyle and the payor's income decreases significantly. It is also understandable that a recipient would be skeptical about reducing support if an income decrease for the payor was voluntary, e.g. quitting his or her job. Those were the circumstances in the recent Appeals Court decision: Emery v. Sturtevant .  The husband/payor in the Emery case resigned from a high income position for "personal reasons" and after an extensive job search obtained a much lower paying job in the same line of work.  He then sought a reduction in his child support and alimony which the trial court dismissed indicating that they were attributing income to him at the job he left. The Appeals Court overturned the trial court's decision and directed the lower court to cal...

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 Massachusetts statute on the enforcement of child support judgments is very clear that child support judgments are not "subject to retroactive modification except with respect to any period during which there is pending a complaint for modification." M.G.L. c. 119A §13(a) .  A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision recognized some exceptions to this rule "in certain very limited circumstances." Rosen v. Rosen (2016) The Rosen case involved a couple who were married fourteen years and divorced by agreement in 2003.  The mother had primary physical custody of three children and the father paid monthly child support of $4,500.  Upon the oldest child moving in with the father, he unilaterally reduced his support by 1/3 without court approval.  The parties later reached an agreement (2009) memorializing a change in support to $3,400.  The agreement was filed but not approved by the court due to procedural issues. In 2011, a second child moved in...

Even after a divorce the conflict between couples sometimes continues due to an ongoing support order or co-parenting relationship.  If spouses don't settle on an agreed upon process for addressing future changes, these disagreements can often lead to additional court cases. In the case of Fehrm-Cappucino v. Cappucino , a 2016 Massachusetts Appeals Court case, the parties took a modification and contempt action to trial and appeal, resulting in a remand of both cases back to the trial court for new findings.  In  Fehrm-Cappucino , the father sought a reduction in his child support in a modification, and the mother sought a finding of contempt against the father for non-payment of a lump sum owed under their agreement. Here is what we can learn from the Fehrm-Cappucino decision: 1.  Rental Income Is Includible for Child Support Calculations The trial Judge excluded rental income each parent had from properties they had an interest in.  The tri...

Guest Post from Beth Aarons* Massachusetts estate planners enjoyed a collective sigh of relief as the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) agreed to further appellate review of the Pfannenstiehl’s plight to determine whether the husband’s interest in his family’s trust should be divisible as a marital asset during divorce.  The SJC issued an opinion that such a trust should not be divided as part of the marital property.  [ SJC-12031 ] When the Pfannenstiehls appeared in case law three years ago, the MA Appeals Court had upheld the Probate and Family Court’s determination that the husband’s one-eleventh fractional beneficial interest in his family’s trust balance (there were 11 living beneficiaries at the time) was a marital asset, with 60% of his one-eleventh share to be paid to the wife as part of the property division in their divorce.  The class of trust beneficiaries was open to include any future descendants of the donor, but the lower court used the existing number...

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 ...

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently provided an overview of the two-part test for deciding if a custodial parent can move out of state with their child  in  Rosenwasser v. Rosenwasser .   The father in Rosenwasser requested the court's permission to move to Florida with the parties' minor child.  The trial court denied his request after applying the two-part test from the Yannas case .  However, the appeals court disagreed with how the trial court applied the test and focused specifically on a change the mother made to her parenting only recently. The appeals court agreed with the trial court that the father met the first prong of the Yannas test because there was a "real advantage" to him moving to Florida, namely decreased expenses and family support.  In addition, the request to move did not appear to be motivated by a desire to deprive the mother of time with the child. The second part of the Yannas test requires the court to determine if the...

(Post updated to fix dead links and reference 2021 Guidelines) In Massachusetts, the Child Support Guidelines define the income that can be used when calculating child support.  The list is exhaustive and as a starting point almost all income is considered with very few exceptions (both for the payor and recipient).   We've created this handy tool for reference when trying to remember this guideline: doesallmyincomecountwhencalculatingchildsupportinmassachusetts.com What's In:  In a recent case, Hoegen v. Hoegen, the Massachusetts Appeals Court indicated that even income from Restricted Stock Units that may have been waived in a property division should be included in the child support determination.  Here is a blog post that beat us to an in depth look at that case: Lynch & Owens, PC - Are RSUs “Income” in Massachusetts Child Support Calculation? The Appeals Court in the Hoegen case noted that even though RSUs are not included in the sourc...