Massachusetts alimony law – Durational limits and prior divorce judgments

In 2012 Massachusetts divorce law changed by implementation of an Alimony Reform Act. A recent case, George v. George, interpreted and explained a portion of the law known as durational limits.

Under prior law, alimony was awarded for life or until a material change of circumstances occurred. It made no difference if the parties were married for one year or thirty. An award of alimony did not have a termination date. The new law imposed durational limits for divorces less than twenty years in length. The longer the marriage, the longer the period of alimony. The George case addressed the issue of applying the durational limits to alimony awards that occurred prior to 2012.

Earlier cases had held that modification should be denied if the recipient spouse testified that property rights were given up in exchange for alimony. This argument is mostly rejected for marriages less than 20 years in length. The Court said that every person who receives alimony will make this argument. The legislature, by implementing durational limits, indicated a clear intent to impose time limits for prior alimony judgments. If prove of a deal exchanging property for alimony can be made by language in the agreement or other contemporaneous documents then the court can consider extending alimony beyond the durational limits. However, in the absence of such written evidence from the time of the alimony judgment, durational limits will require termination of alimony for previously granted alimony judgments.

While the legislature created the durational limits, it also created an exception: “in the interests of justice.” The Court in the George case established guidelines for application of the interests of justice standard.

First the Court was clear that there can not be a deviation from the durational limits unless the trial judge makes written findings of fact, based on the evidence, which explain that deviation beyond the limits is “required in the interests of justice.” The recipient spouse bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that deviation beyond the presumptive termination date is warranted.

Second the circumstances must be evaluated in the here and now. In other words, the circumstances as they exist at the time deviation is sought. While the court can look at prior circumstances, they can't be considered by the court unless the circumstances still exist. As an example, a previously disabled spouse can't get alimony beyond the durational limits unless the disability continues to exist.

Third, the Judge must consider all relevant statutorily specified factors. The court then identified which statutory factors are to be considered: (advanced age, chronic illness, unusual health circumstances; (2) tax considerations; (3) payment of health insurance; (4) required life insurance, (5) sources; (5) amounts of unearned income; (6) significant premarital cohabitation; (7) inability to provide for a party's own support due to abuse by the payor; (8) a party's inability to provide for their own support due to other reasons; and (9) any other factor the Court deems relevant and material.

This decision shows a distinct preference to terminate prior alimony judgments based on the durational limits while allowing a continuation of alimony in limited circumstances. This is a complicated area of law that requires a comprehensive evaluation of all current circumstances of both the payor and receipient of alimony. Individuals should consult an experienced family law attorney before making any decisions about how they could be effected by the change in law.

The Massachusetts Alimony Law – A Deal is a Deal

In 2011 Massachusetts enacted an alimony reform law. This law changed many aspects of alimony including imposing termination of alimony when the payor reaches the maximum retirement age and when the payee cohabits. Since enactment of this law, lawyers and Judges have been struggling with the question of how do these changes affect prior alimony agreements and judgments. On January 30, 2015 the Supreme Judicial Court answered this question by stating in essence that a deal is a deal. The Court held that the limits for cohabitation and retirement do not apply retroactively to alimony agreements and judgments that pre-date the enactment of the new law.

This interpretation of the new law does not apply to all alimony judgments. When parties enter into a separation agreement, they have the ability to specify that the agreement merges into the divorce judgment or survives as an independent agreement. If the agreement merges with the divorce then the agreement may be modified in the future if certain conditions are met. If the agreement survives as an independent contract, then the agreement can't be modified by a judge. It may be modified by agreement of the parties. The new alimony law does not give the courts the power to change any prior separation agreements that survive. This new interpretation only applies to separation agreements that merged into the decree of divorce.

In three cases, Chin v. Merriot, Doktorv. Doktor, and Rodman v. Rodman, the court held that with one exception, all alimony judgments that pre-date the new law are subject to modification as if the new law never went into effect. This means that alimony can change if the terms of the separation agreement or divorce judgment state conditions that will change or terminate the alimony or if there is a material change of circumstances. Reaching retirement age or the recipient of alimony cohabitating only constitutes a material change of circumstances if the agreement specifically states so. Otherwise, there can not be a modification for these reasons.

These decisions indicated that the new law does allow termination of alimony for what is known as “durational limits.” For marriages less than twenty years, alimony is limited to a percentage of the length of the marriage. The longer the marriage, the higher the percentage. Prior alimony awards that had no termination date that are merged into the decree of divorce and the length of the marriage is less than twenty years are subject to these durational limits. As a result, a modification may be filed to terminate alimony under these circumstances.

The new alimony law is very complicated. If you have questions about the application of this law you should consult an experienced family law attorney for advice about your particular situation.

Child support agreements need court approval

Previously, I wrote about the dangers of parents making an agreement for child support and not

seeking approval from a court. A recent case, Zizza v. Zizza, from the Massachusetts Appellate Division (Oct. 27, 2014) is an example of the problems created when parents make an agreement without judicial approval.

In the Zizza case, the parties, after a foreign divorce, entered into a private agreement regarding property division, child custody, visitation, and child support. The agreement also had a clause that stated that the agreement could not be be modified by any court. This agreement eventually resulted in litigation in Massachusetts District Court with the court ordering a modification of the child support obligation. On appeal, the Appellate Division upheld the modification of child support. The court added a comment which explained that the Massachusetts Legislature has declared that it is against public policy to make an agreement that prevents the courts from changing child support obligations.

If you are about to make an agreement for child support you should consult a lawyer who is experienced in family law to make sure you don't fall into a child support trap.

My spouse is cohabitating. Can I stop alimony payments?

In 2012, a new alimony law went into effect in Massachusetts. This alimony law contains a provision that reads:

General term alimony shall be suspended, reduced or terminated upon the cohabitation of the recipient spouse when the payor shows that the recipient spouse has maintained a common household, as defined in this subsection, with another person for a continuous period of at least 3 months

This language seems to say that if the ex-spouse cohabits for three months or longer that alimony is automatically terminated, reduced, or suspended. However, that is an incorrect interpretation of this law.

The payment or non-payment of alimony is controlled by court orders. Unless and until a Judge orders termination or suspension of alimony existing orders must be obeyed. This means that alimony must continue to be paid until a judge issues an order that changes the existing orders. Some separation agreements and divorce decrees have language that automatically terminates alimony upon cohabitation. Other agreements can't be modified by a Judge and alimony must continue to be paid despite the cohabitation. The rest of the orders of alimony must be presented to a judge in the form of a modification action in which the relief sought is termination of alimony. This allows the judge to hear facts to determine if cohabitation has occurred. In some cases, a judge may reduce alimony instead of terminating the payments.

This is a complicated area of law. Wrongful termination of alimony can result in a judgment of contempt against the payor. Before taking a unilateral action that violates a court order a family law attorney should be consulted. Such an attorney can review the existing orders and evidence of cohabitation and advise on the parties rights and obligations concerning future alimony.

My Ex and I agree to change the terms of our divorce. Do we have to go to Court?

Once a Massachusetts Court has made an order or judgment in a divorce or paternity case it is enforceable by all of the powers of the Court and State for enforcement of judgments. This means that any change must be approved by the Court. Of course minor changes in the parenting plan don't need court approval. (If the parties swap weekends, as an example, no court involvement is required.) However significant changes, such as anything to with money or finances will need court approval.

There is a trap if the parties don't change the court order.  As an example, assume that the divorce required the Husband to pay $300.00 per week. The ex-spouses agree that the child should spend more time with Father and enter into an agreement for the child to live half of the time with each parent. Because the child is with each parent for an equal amount of time, the parents also agree that the Ex-Husband should stop all child support payments. The Ex-Husband, relying on this agreement, stops the payments. Five years later, the Ex-Wife files a contempt in Probate Court for the five years of unpaid child support. Since the Court never approved the agreement, the original order is still enforceable. The Ex-Husband owes five years worth of support or $78,000.00 plus interest and possibly attorney fees.

This trap can be avoided by the parties seeking Court approval of their agreement. Parties tend to avoid court because they think it will cost a lot of money. However, the Probate and Family Court has a simplified proceedure to approve agreements of this nature and have forms available on their website which the parties can fill out and submit. This procedure is explained in Rule 412 Of The Supplemental Rules Of The Probate And Family Court.
Every person in Massachusetts who agrees to change the financial terms of child support or spousal support should not rely on the agreement. Instead, they should use the simplified proceedure and have a judge approve the changes. Then, they can safely rely on the order of the court. An experienced Massachusetts Family Law Attorney can help parties present their agreement to the Court for approval.

Does Massachusetts have a new standard for modification of child support?

A recent case in Massachusetts, Morales v. Morales, decided March 12, 2013 SJC # 11104 is described as changing the standard for modification of child support. While this is clearly an important case, in my opinion, it does not change the law.

The traditional law of modification for child support is that a modification can be granted when there exists a material and substantial change of circumstances from the prior court order. There have been many court decisions interpreting this standard. In 1998, Massachusetts changed G.L. c. 208, § 28

which provides that a child support order shall be modified "if there is an inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount that would result from application of the child support guidelines." In the Morales case, the Court describes G.L. c. 208, § 28 as establishing a different standard for a modification, the inconsistency standard. I have always interpreted this law as stating that an inconsistency from the existing guidelines constituted a material change of circumstances. The result is the same, child support can and should be modified any time there is a variance from the order and the guidelines.

In the Morales case, the Court also addressed another aspect of the child support guidelines: overtime. In this case, the trial judge announced that she does not include overtime in the child support calculations. The child support guidelines give the judge ability to disregard overtime after considering numerous factors. However, this trial Judge never considered overtime. On appeal, the court found that the Judge cannot approach the child support guidelines with an inflexible rule on consideration of overtime. The Judge must approach as a neutral and give due consideration to the factors as stated in the child support guidelines.

My interpretation of this case is as follows:

1. The child support guidelines are not guidelines. They are a set of rules that must be followed.
2. Any time that there is a variance from current calculations under the child support guidelines, there should be a modification. Hopefully, parents will exchange financial information on a regular basis and make the adjustments without resorting to litigation.
3. People who pay child support (payors) should not make deals to pay different sums than dictated by the child support guidelines. As an example, assume the parties agree to pay reduced child support in exchange for a lump sum payment. This could be approved at the time of a divorce. However, what happens one year later when the recipient of the support seeks an increase to comply with the current child support guidelines? It appears that the payor could end up paying the current child support guidelines even though they made a deal to pay less. The lesson is that it is very risky to stray from the guidelines.
4. It is reversable error for a Judge to state that they always approach the child support guidelines in a particular way. Judges may say this to encourage settlement. It appears that Judges should avoid making statements of this nature. In all probability, Judges will continue to have inflexible approaches to the application of the guidelines. However, they will probably stop talking about their approaches and just make rulings after hearing the evidence.

Despite this opinion which clarifies the interpretation of the child support guidelines, people will continue to litigate child support. Some people will try to hide their income. Some people will not disclose their income in advance of litigation. Some people will refuse to consider sources of income other than from their primary work. In all of these cases, litigation is likely to occur. It would be best if people consulted family law attorneys before making mistakes of this nature.

Bribe your ex-spouse.

After divorce, parties frequently feel the need to change the terms of the separation agreement or divorce judgment. The easiest way to change the divorce terms is to enter into an agreement with your ex-spouse. Unfortunately, the ex may not agree even though you are asking for changes that are logical and reasonable. It appears that your only option is to hire a lawyer and file a modification action. This is a long and expensive process. There is another option:  Bribe your ex-spouse.

In many cases, the other spouse may cooperate if they receive money or other consideration for the agreement. An example of this is moving the child out of state. If the ex-spouse refuses to give permission to take the child, consider offering other considerations. I suggest that the child support payments be lowered to compensate for the added cost of traveling out of state to visit. In addition, the visitation schedule should be changed to give the other parent longer visits. Perhaps giving the other parent Christmas vacation every year would obtain their cooperation. In addition, the parties could agree on regular “Skype” visits over the internet. Offers of this nature may result in cooperation to move out of state and improve the relationship between the two parents.

After you and your ex-spouse have agreed, you can file a simplified form to have the court approve your agreement.

My ex-spouse brought me back to court. Do I have to show my new spouse’s income on my financial statement?

A complaint for modification of child support will require both parties to file financial statements.  The latest version of the financial statement has a line to show contribution from other household members. This would include a spouse or a roommate if they pay a portion of the household expenses. The financial statement is suppose to show your complete financial situation. If your rent, mortgage, food bills, or any expenses are paid by another person, they need to be shown on your financial statement to give a complete and honest financial presentation. However, your spouses' income that is not used for expenses does not have to be shown. On the other hand, you may have to reveal their income in discovery if documents are requested or other information is sought. An example is a joint federal tax return would have to be produced and would show your spouses income.

Your new spouse has an obligation to support you but not your children.  If the new spouse earns enough income to support themselves and you, then the court can consider their income to the extent that it allows you to pay more money to support your children.  If this argument is made, then your new spouses' income must be revealed.  The rest of their finances should not need to be disclosed.

What effect does remarriage have on child support?

In most cases, remarriage has no effect on a prior child support order. However, where the new spouse has high income or assets, this could be different. Child support is based on certain concepts. One of them is that each parent has to use their income for their own living expenses. While a new spouse has no obligation to support a step child, they do have an obligation to support their spouse. Where the new spouse has enough income to support themselves and the parent, this could mean that the parent has more income available to support the child. As such, a judge could change the child support by considering this factor.