Don't fall for this alimony trap!

In 2014 I wrote about a child support trap. In this article I described the trap happening when two parents agree to change child support between themselves without court approval. After years of following the out of court agreement, the parent who received less support files a contempt action. Typically the court will enforce the order and order payment of back child support even if the out of court agreement is fair, in writing, and signed by the parties. The out of court agreement is not recognized as valid for any reduced payments made before the filing of the contempt. A similar fact patern was the subject of a case involving alimony.

In the case of Smith v. Smith, Mass. App. Ct. No. 17-P-765 (6/7/2018) the divorce left the Husband paying alimony to the Wife. Over the years, the parties entered into a series of agreements resulting in the Husband paying money for the benefit of the parties' adult children and reducing the amount of alimony paid to the Wife. After a number of years of these reduced payments, the Wife filed a contempt because the payments by the Husband were less than the court order. Unlike cases involving child support, the Husband argued equitable defenses based on “detrimental reliance” called laches or estoppel. The Court did not rule on the detrimental reliance argument. Instead, the Court ruled that alimony can be modified retroactively to consider the agreements of the parties. The retroactive modification must be based on all of the statutory factors that a Judge is require and permitted to consider when making an alimony decision. The Appeals Court sent the case back to the trial judge to make a decision based on the alimony factors. This probably will cause a second trial for the parties but it is likely that the Husband will have some benefit from a retroactive alimony modification. However, if the Husband had a significant increase in income or the Wife had a significant decrease, it is possible that the Husband could end up paying more in alimony than the original order.

The best course of action and the correct cause of action is that if the parties make an agreement to modify alimony or child support that they should seek court approval of the agreement. Massachusetts has a simplified procedure for modifications by agreement. They are typically approved based on the documents only and don't require that the parties physically appear in court.

If the parties don't want to seek court approval then they run the risk of one party paying large sums of money for arrears of alimony or child support. In this instance, they should put their agreement in writing and each party should sign the agreement before a notary public. While no court has approved this, I have a suggestion on how to write the agreement. Massachusetts does allow alimony to be paid “in kind.” This means that alimony can be paid directly to creditors instead of to the ex-spouse. As an example, if the wife has a history of not paying the mortgage, then the court may order the Husband to pay a portion of alimony each month to the mortgage company and the balance to be paid to the Wife. This concept can be applied to out of court agreements. Using the Smith case as an example, I can illustrate my suggestion.

In the Smith case, the Husband was ordered to pay $650.00 per week. One of the reasons for reduction of alimony was that the Husband paid tuition for the daughter's graduate school tuition. The could have written an agreement that state that the two parties agree to pay $400.00 per week for the daughter's tuition with each party paying $200.00 per week. They could agree that the Husband will pay the Wife's $200.00 per week directly to the school and pay the wife the remainder of $450.00 per week. This could be viewed as a payment in kind and may not be considered a contempt. The problem with this is that the Wife would be taxed on the $200.00 per week and the Husband would have a tax deduction.

When considering an agreement to change a child support or alimony award, the best way to proceed is to consult an experienced family law attorney who can draft an agreement and submit it to the court for approval.

Contempts and the right to counsel

In the case of Turner v. Rogers, U.S Sup.Ct. No 10-10 June 30, 2011, the Supreme Court addressed the question of is a court appointed attorney required in civil contempt proceedings for the collection of child support. The simple answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no. Probably, most of the time, court appointed counsel will not be required. It is my opinion that under present Massachusetts practice, court appointed counsel must be appointed. If Massachusetts makes some minor changes, counsel won't be required in the majority of cases.

The decision of the court makes it clear that incarceration as a result of a contempt finding is just as harmful as incarceration in a criminal case. Before jail can be imposed for non-payment of child support, the court must either appoint an attorney to represent the defendant or provide “substitute procedural safeguards.” Substitute procedural safeguards include (1) notice to the defendant that his “ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information from him; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for him to respond to statements and questions about his financial status; and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay. Massachusetts practice includes the last three of these safeguards. What is lacking is the notice to the defendant that his ability to pay is a critical issue.

Notice of a complaint for contempt is provided by service of a summons and a complaint. The current form of a summons does not have any language that provides notice that ability to pay is a critical issue. As long as Massachusetts lacks this essential notice, it appears that Massachusetts will have to appoint attorneys to represent defendants in contempt cases. It should be a simple and inexpensive remedy for the state to revise the form of summons and include the language that is now constitutionally required. Until this is done, the language can be added to complaints or court appointed attorneys must be provided.

While the Supreme Court decision does not go further, I think that the decision requires more than notice and filling out a financial statement. It appears to require that the Defendant have the ability to understand the issue of ability to pay and to present testimony on this issue to the court. If the defendant lacks this ability, then the court needs to appoint counsel.

A family law case is now before the United States Supreme Court

It is rare when the United States Supreme Court hears a child support case. However, there is a case before the Supreme Court now involving such an issue. In the case of Turner v. Price, Docket No. 10-10, Turner was incarcerated for one year for non-payment of child support. The South Carolina Court that heard the trial did not make a finding that Turner was indigent and did not appoint an attorney to represent him before sentencing him to jail. If Turner was sentenced in a criminal case, he would have had a court appointed attorney. However, in a civil contempt case, under South Carolina law, he didn’t qualify for a court appointed lawyer.
It doesn’t make any difference to a person if they are jailed in a civil case or a criminal case. Jail is jail either way. Violation of a court order may result in a case for civil or criminal contempt. The court has the power to jail people for violation of court orders. Some people violate court orders and fail to pay child support because they can’t afford to pay the money. Others violate court orders and fail to pay child support because they choose to not pay the money. Clearly some people need the threat of a jail sentence or even time in jail as an incentive to pay child support. Frequently, the determination of imposing jail time is not known until the end of the hearing.
The case of Turner v. Price raises the issue of the constitutionality of imposing a jail sentence without the benefit of an attorney to defend the person before jail is imposed. Just as in criminal cases, the result of the civil contempt may be different if a lawyer is involved. This is an important issue as nobody should go to jail without due process and an opportunity to present a defense. These are not rights guaranteed in criminal cases. These are rights guaranteed to Americans under the United States Constitution. On the other hand, the state must pay for court appointed attorneys. If the defendant can’t afford an attorney and the state must provide one then the state must also pay for the attorney. As the states are cutting budgets and court systems are experiencing large cuts in their budgets, it is difficult to argue that they should allocate money to pay attorneys to represent parents who won’t pay child support. I suspect that any ruling on this case will extend to all civil contempts including contempts for non-payment of alimony and any other violation of a court order.
This case bears watching but we may be disappointed in the result. The court ordered the parties to brief the issue of incarceration for civil contempt without a lawyer and another issue. They also ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear this case. If the court finds no jurisdiction, they won’t may any orders on the other issue. The briefs in this case are due to be filed in January and February, 2011.