Alimony Reform on Wikipedia
To promote peace, independence, and self-sufficiency of the parties to divorce.
To amend the Massachusetts alimony laws so judges have clear guidelines that:
- Support self-sufficiency and independence for the lower-earning spouse through alimony payments that continue during a transition period, which lasts more than a decade in long-term marriages;
- Maintain appropriate judicial discretion to fairly judge unique circumstances where the lower-earning spouse is physically or mentally unable to work to gain self-sufficiency, continuing alimony payments in special cases, and only until no longer needed;
- End lifelong alimony dependency, allowing each party of the divorce to move-on with independent lives;
- Provide alimony payers the same right to retire that is enjoyed by all other citizens;
- Protect second wives from current case law, which requires judges to fully investigate second-wives' income and assets and then force the second wives to pay alimony to their husband's non-working or under-employed first wife, or face jail;
- End expensive legal battles over vague alimony laws and interpretations; and
- Provide equal and consistent application of the law, regardless of the judge.
Support House Bill 1785 to Reform MA Alimony Laws
Read Alimony Reform Bill 1785.
Awareness For Alimony Reform is Growing
- Seventy-two (72) state legislators have co-sponsored our Reform Bill, HT 1785.
- Lowell Sun Editorial supports HT 1785,
Lifetime Alimony Payments are Archaic.
"A bill proposed by state Rep. Steven M. Walsh, D-Lynn, could change that lifetime burden to a more manageable, and equitable, responsibility...
If Massachusetts wants to maintain its reputation as a progressive state with a cerebral population, it must reform its antiquated alimony laws." - Boston Globe's Adrian Walker on
"Alimony Agony".
"Like most states, Massachusetts divorce law changed in the 1970s, the golden era of no-fault divorce. But while divorce changed, alimony really didn’t." - Wall Street Journal's Jennifer Levitz on
"The New Art of Alimony".
"Pressures are mounting to change a practice that some see as outdated and unfair." - WBZ's Jonathan Elias on
Alimony For Life - Push To Change Mass. Laws. - Fox 25 News' Ted Daniel on
Changing The State Alimony Laws. (Ted Daniels has run three stories on Alimony Reform.) - NPR's Tom Ashcroft on
Til Death Do They Pay? - Community Newspapers' David Riley on
Update sought for alimony criteria in Massachusetts - Boston Magazine's Kris Frieswick on
Till Death Do Us Pay. - Massachusetts School of Law Journal by Barbara von Hauzen, Esq.
Should Permanent Alimony Be Eliminated? - Boston Globe Op-ed by Elizabeth Benedict on
The Chilling Effect of States Divorce Laws.
The Benefits of House Bill 1785 to Divorced Women and Men
- Supports Self-sufficiency and Independence: “The goal that any party needing alimony shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time. Such reasonable period of time shall be one-half of the length of the marriage. … Such reasonable period of time, or duration of alimony, shall not exceed twelve years except only ...”
- Supports Cost of Living Alimony Increases. "The sole and exclusive reason or cause warranting an increase in the amount of alimony shall be the percentage rise, if any, during the prior calendar year in the Consumer Product Index, as published by the United States Department of Labor, such increase shall commence at the beginning of the calendar year and shall equal such rise provided that the earned income of the supporting party has increased during such prior calendar year by more than three times such percentage increase in such Index."
- Supports Stopping the Use of Second Wives Earnings and Assets To Calculate Alimony. "The income and assets of any adult cohabiting with the supporting party, whether or not the supporting party is married to such adult, shall not be considered when determining or modifying alimony."
- Supports the Right for Alimony-payers to Retire. "The obligation of the supporting party to pay alimony shall, without exception, cease upon such party attaining retirement age, as defined in Title II, section 216, of the Social Security Act (42 USC 416).
- Provides Judicial Discretion to protect lower-earning spouses who are physically and mentally unable to work.
Support House Bill 1785. Meet and email your state senators and house members, especially if one of your senators or house members is on the Joint Committee of the Judiciary [Contact information].
Oppose Senate Bill 1616
Some Powerful Divorce Attorneys and Professional Lawyer Organizations Want No Real Reform.
When writing to your state legislators, mention your opposition to Senate Bill 1616, which is supported by some powerful divorce lawyers and their professional organizations, including:
- Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, who co-sponsored the bill with only one other legislator. Attorney Creem is chair of the powerful Joint Committee of the Judiciary, which has sole power to advance or kill any and all family law bills. Senator Creem is also a practicing divorce lawyer and former chair of the Mass Bar Association's Family Law Section. Senator Creem is also a Member of the Women's Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association.
- Alice Hanlon Peisch, who was only the second legislator to co-sponsor Bill 1616.
- The Boston Bar Association. See the Boston Business Journal Article, Bar association wades into divorce law spat
- The Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts, "The WBA supports S1616, An Act Relative to Flexibility in Alimony Orders, because it would allow the court to give short-term alimony, or alimony for a fixed period if appropriate... The WBA opposes H1785, An Act Relative to the Determination of Alimony Payments, because it eliminates the partnership model of marriage that has been in place in the Commonwealth for decades."
SB 1616 Perpetuates Lifetime Pain for Higher-Earning Spouses and Second Wives
Senate Bill 1616 simply adds TWO WORDS to the thirteen or so broad considerations in the current alimony legislation, "and Duration". Senator Creem's proposal will keep the case-law driven alimony system unclear and unpredictable -- continuing to maximize animosity among divorcing couples, increase contentious and bullying lawyer debates, and add to already excessive legal fees in the court room. The revised language does:
- Nothing to clearly end the automatic sentencing of lifetime alimony to people who's only "crime" was to be divorced by a walk-away, lower-earning spouse under the state's "no-fault" divorce laws.
- Nothing to clarify the hodgepodge, quilt work of antiquated case law decisions, creating a lifetime of worry and fear for honest, higher-earning men and women who are at the unbridled mercy of judges' unpredictable and inconsistent decisions using their wide discretion;
- Nothing to stop second wives from being forced to work and support first wives in alimony modifications;
- Nothing to clarify when an alimony payer can retire;
- Nothing to support lower-earning spouses to develop self-confidence and independence, rather than becoming a life-long, dependent ward of their higher-earning spouses;
- Nothing to stop alimony receivers from coming back to court to demand an increase in alimony or to come back and restart alimony long after the original alimony ends; and
- Nothing to stop the alimony receiving party from collecting full alimony, even when he/she cohabitates, but does not marry his/her partner.
The Probate and Family Courts are overcrowded with divorce and alimony modification cases, forcing judges to make their own "cookie-cutter" rules that will speed the cases through the divorce court mill. Except in expensive trials, each judge metes out his or her own alimony decisions based on their personal guidelines. The result is that alimony decisions vary from judge to judge, creating a violation of the equal justice provision under the United States Constitution. Email your opposition to Senate Bill 1616.
The "Partnership Model" is a wrong construct for these modern times.
The Women's Bar Association argues that the "partnership" model for divorced couples means that the higher-earning ex-spouse must pay alimony for past career sacrifices made by the lower-earning spouse [conveniently ignoring the career sacrifices by the higher-earning spouse]. Does this partnership model still apply when the lower-earning spouse walks-away from the marriage, has an affair with another man or woman, or otherwise is at "fault" for the divorce due to unilateral choices he or she made? The issue of fault is ignored by the Woman's Bar Association since Massachusetts is a "no-fault" state. Rather, the rule of case law is simply to punish the higher-earning spouse, for life, solely for being the higher earner at the time of the divorce.
Today, according to the Wall Street Journal Article, In Downturn's Wake, Women Hold Half of U.S. Jobs, 50% of the workforce is made up of women, and 40% of women in marriages earn higher incomes than men. The partnership model was conceived when women did not have the career successes and choices that exist today.
In addition, the lawyers supporting this "partnership" model appear to be hypocritical, as they do not follow an analogous partnership model in their own firms. When a long-term law partner quits the firm -- even after decades of service -- that attorney surrenders all partnership benefits. That partner no longer receives a share of the firm's profits in an amount that he or she became accustomed to receiving after long years of service.
The Massachusetts Bar Association's
Alimony Task Force -- An alternative Approach
Download the MBA's Alimony Task Force's Proposal
In cases without dependent children, the Massachusetts Bar Association's Task Force has offered a set of guidelines for judges to consider. While these guidelines do not have the force of law, nor can they influence case law decisions, the MBA has moved significantly to address some, but not all, of the problems identified by the press and the Massachusetts Alimony Reform (MAR) group. These guidelines show that the MBA as been thoughtfully considering the problem of lifetime alimony awards.
Positive aspects of the Task Force proposal include:
- The MBA has proposed specific formulas for calculating alimony in marriages lasting less than 20 years. These formulas, while extending alimony terms beyond reasonable and sufficient periods proposed by MAR, are still an important recognition that Probate and Family judges need guidelines to make alimony awards consistent and predictable, regardless of the judge hearing the divorce case.
- The MBA recognizes that alimony payors have a right to retire:
"Retirement-Notwithstanding the above, a payor’s alimony or spousal support obligation for general alimony is presumed to terminate upon the payor spouse’s retirement in fact from gainful employment at an age that would be considered usual retirement age for the spouse’s career."
- The MBA propses a cap to Alimony payments:
"V. INCOME GUIDELINES (NOT APPLICABLE TO REIMBURSEMENT ALIMONY) An alimony or spousal support order in a specific dollar amount when set, should be entered in consideration of traditional concepts of alimony including marital lifestyle and need of the parties. The dollar amount should not generally exceed 33% of the difference between the gross ordinary incomes of the parties. The Alimony Task Force emphasizes that the foregoing is not to be utilized as a “formula” for setting an alimony or spousal support order.
Any support being paid for child support (payer’s pre-tax equivalent) or for spousal support pursuant to a court order should reduce the payer or payee’s gross ordinary income for the purposes of this Section V.
Deficiencies of the Task Force proposal include:
- Second-Wives are not protected from paying alimony to first wives.
- Co-habitation of the alimony receiver is not a defined reason for lowering alimony payments.
- There is no limitation on an alimony receiver going back to court - even decades later - to start alimony or to increase alimony in a long-term marriage.
- Alimony dependency continues greater than reasonably necessary for an alimony receiver to go to college, get career training, and become a fully independent, self-sufficient, and productive member of society.