First of all, I want to be clear that I think that there are cases that certainly call for alimony, also known as spousal support. There are also cases where our current system seems to create some unfair results. Those ordered to pay lifetime alimony might equate their situation to a having a nasty virus – it can make you feel sick and takes a long time to go away. In fact, one of the current Massachusetts alimony reform bills, HT 1785 even sounds like a new bug requiring lots of hand sanitizer.
Much of this recent activity and information referenced in this post is available on the Massachusetts Alimony Reform website. Recently, the Boston Bar Association created some controversy by jumping head-first into the alimony reform issue by endorsing Senate Bill 1616. The Senate bill allows judges to consider the duration of alimony awards, but that is it. Critics argue that allowing judges discretion with setting the length of alimony awards – although a step in the right direction – does not go far enough in changing our antiquated approach to spousal support here in the Bay State.
Boston Business Journal writer Lisa van der Pool wrote a story about the BBA’s endorsement of Senate Bill 1616 on September 25, 2009. She was also interviewed on NECN about the story and the controversy created by the BBA’s support. Again, all of this info, including links to both bills, is easily accessible on the MA Alimony Reform website which is linked above – thus I have not duplicated every link in this post.
Those supporting more sweeping reform of the Commonwealth’s alimony system support the House Bill, HT 1785. HT 1785 provides comprehensive changes well beyond just allowing judges discretion in determining the length of alimony payments. By the way, if you have HT 1785, make sure you cough and sneeze into your elbow. Of all body parts, the elbow seems to be getting a bad deal lately as the body’s new germ storage facility. Even if you are paying alimony, be glad you are not an elbow.
My fellow Massachusetts family law attorneys appear split on the alimony reform issue. For instance, fellow blogger and attorney Steven Ballard supports the sweeping reforms in HT 1785, while Boston divorce lawyer and blogger Nancy Van Tine of the large firm of Burns and Levinson was quoted in the Boston Business Journal article as being critical of HT 1785, saying that it “took the current law and flipped it on its head and made it equally bad in the other direction.” The BBJ article does not go into detail about Attorney Van Tine’s reasoning, but her other posts have stated that she feels HT 1785 is too formulaic of an approach.
There are other observations and questions related to these issues that I find interesting.
1. Will sweeping alimony reform cost some divorce lawyers who focus on litigation money? Seems that could definitely be the case. Is this a factor behind the Boston Bar Association’s opposition to the house bill? I wonder how many attorneys involved in the vote at the BBA are litigators that earn big fees from trying alimony cases?
2. The MA Alimony Reform group is always talking about rich divorce lawyers. I am obviously doing something wrong.
3. This issue brings out a lot of anger and emotions in some people, not that there is anything wrong with that. When reading parts of the MA Alimony Reform site, there are some dramatic statements. How about this for example when making the case for their opposition to Senate Bill 1616: “The (Boston) Bar Association’s proposal will keep the law unclear – continuing to maximize the animosity between divorcing couples; increase contentious and bullying lawyer debates; and add to already exorbitant legal fees in the court room.”
Wow. That must be one powerful statute!
Is the law really responsible for maximizing animosity between divorcing couples? That seems just a bit of a stretch. First of all, many couples maintain a respectful attitude during divorce and make the transition without being driven by animosity. For couples driven by conflict and resentment, is the current alimony scheme really responsible for maximizing the animosity between these high-conflict divorces? I think not.
If lawyers are having contentious and bullying debates, isn’t that because the lawyers are zealously advocating the wishes of their clients? If a client does not want their attorney to have these contentious and bullying debates, then the client can hire a different lawyer with a different approach.
Finally, there are steps couples can take to control legal fees, although it is possible that one side may increase the other side’s legal fees due to having to respond to various discovery requests, motions, and unreasonable positions. That is unfortunate.
Thus, in some of these “alimony horror stories” how reasonable were the positions of the parties involved? Did they consider a collaborative divorce or hiring a skilled mediator before entering the nasty arena of litigation? Were opportunities for settlement fully explored? Was an experienced divorce coach considered to guide people through the process in such a way to have hatred not be the driving force?
I don’t usually buy into the theory that people are completely powerless to get off of the roller coaster ride. Litigation can start to take on a life of its own as parties (including lawyers) may become entrenched in positions and feel they have to win at all costs. Divorce involves many complex factors, some more emotional than legal.
For couples that simply cannot or will not agree, we have the courts. As our family structures evolve, so it seems should the concept of alimony. Let’s not expect any one statute to have magical powers however. Couples driven by animosity will probably find other things to argue over and seek out the type of lawyer that is ready to fan the flames.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent points. I am going to cite your excellent post in my next blog about this issue. I’m also adding your excellent blog to my blogroll.
Your article is objective, but not insightful. You have obviously not been involved in a divorce in Massachusetts and are not subject to life time alimony, with repeated costly appeals for modification that go ignored by most judges. The increase in animosity occurs over the course of years.
Thanks JG for your comment. Just to clarify one point you made, it is true that I am not divorced and that I do not pay or receive alimony. Obviously, nobody would ever let a great catch like me get away! My wife is probably laughing the loudest right now.
That being said, I don’t think it is reasonable to say that I have not been involved in a divorce in MA since I work with divorcing people every day as a lawyer and a mediator. I have had clients pay alimony and receive alimony. I also have the experience of practicing in another state besides MA, adding to my perspective.
The most vocal proponents of sweeping alimony reform tend to be those that had to pay alimony in a way they would claim to be unfair, thus their opinions are primarily based on this single experience. Practitioners on the other hand are involved in hundreds of cases and draw their views on a much wider sample. I am not saying that your opinion is less valuable or important, only that although I agree that our alimony system should be updated, trying to find the right mix of statutory updates and judicial discretion is not a simple task.
Thanks again for your contribution to the blog.
-Steve
Great article. You fail however to mention that reasonable couples do not divorce…most are contentious. Worse than that are the gender biased rules that clearly weigh in the favor of one gender in particular. If you have ever been involved in a divorce you would be a blind man if you did not see the obvious disparity. When couples decide to split, the concept of ” couple” is gone. How do you expect compromise when they are not a couple, when when they were a couple that could not be reached ? Hence a structured rule system must be in place. After all ” no fault” means exactly that ..not utilizing a system for personal gain at the expense of another.
Your post was … confusing. Where do you stand on this?
Let me just clarify my “baggage” before proceeding. I am divorced in the state of MA, but we had nothing, I gave him everything of my nothing, just to get it over with, and am not receiving or paying alimony.
Having said that, I find your first point
“Is the law really responsible for maximizing animosity between divorcing couples?” I know that if my ex were to take me back into court I would be very angry. I would not be traipsing back in with a smile on my face. Would it increase my animosity? OF COURSE IT WOULD! Anytime anyone takes another party into court it will be contentious.
To the gentleman who said
“The most vocal proponents of sweeping alimony reform tend to be those that had to pay alimony in a way they would claim to be unfair, thus their opinions are primarily based on this single experience. Practitioners on the other hand are involved in hundreds of cases and draw their views on a much wider sample.”
You must know a lot of amicably divorced couples. I on the other hand know zero. As we know 50% of marriages end in divorce, this means that there are MANY divorced people in this world and any person has a 50% chance that the person they are talking to in any given place at any given time is divorced. If the conversation turns to divorce, it’s never exactly a love fest. So to you, Mr Practitioner, I congratulate you on contributing to amicability in so many divorces that you’ve obviously been privy to. Bravo. Perhaps you could speak to my Ex for me?
My main objection with the current alimony laws of MA is that too many upper middle class women are not taking responsibility for their own well being, and ultimately that of their children’s. I think a reasonable amount of time for a woman to ‘get up to speed’ in terms of earnings is fair, but to take the luxury of being a stay at home mom, while kids are in high school and the alimony is coming in, is unfathomable. It should be time for them to get their feet wet and get a degree or experience under their belt. Lower class women routinely have 1 to 2 jobs to make ends meet and take care of their children. Why do upper middle class women feel so entitled to take it easy? Life isn’t fair and divorce happens. Suck it up and get to work. If you think you are the only working mom out there, think again. I have children, a full time job and a part time job and I’m thankful to have those jobs right now. I worked through college and I’ll be working through their college and beyond I’m sure. I don’t ask for support and I don’t want it.
Under current law if I were to remarry the ex could take my hard earned money to subsidize her lifestyle. I can’t even tell you how contentious THAT litigation would be.
Steve,
Just stumbled onto the blog. A little late I guess, but here is my two cents worth. I’m divorced, remarried and pay alimony. The only prob that I have, is that my ex (who by the way I get along very well with) and who happens to live with a wealthy guy has actually said that she will never get married to him so she can have her “mad money” from me via the laws of the commonwealth. A real shame.
Steve,
Another late contribution. I am married nearly 20 years. We have one child in college. My wife is a singer who make a couple of hundred bucks a months. She doesn’t like sex and is unnaffectionate and critical. She hasn’t worked a regular job since our marriage, because she doesn’t “like” it. I make six figures and would be forced to live on about 30k per year if I were divorced. Even if my salary is lowered or I were laid off, both quite distinct possibilities, I would have to pay this amount, until my retirement, which would be impossible due to having to pay the alimoney. I am well aware of this because I’ve done my homework.
My question to you: how do divorce lawyers earn their money? By divorce proceedings and subsequent litigation, correct? So if a law passed that mandated the terms of most divorces, then this would greatly reduce the need for litigation, correct? And if the law made things “fairer”, as is the intent of 1785, this would further reduce the need for litigation, no? Therefore, as you yourself admit, divorce lawyers stand to lose money if 1785 passes. Thus it seems that the reason the lawyers association came out in favor 1616 (or no change) is simply to preserver lawyers’ income streams. This is understandable – who want to revamp their career mid-stream? But this stand cynically ignores the injustice the system is inflicting on divorced men who are living in near poverty under threat of being jailed, while ex-wives refuse to work and take vacations and refuse to re-marry. It’s a very scary situation for someone considering divorce; and as a result I’m destined to live out my life unhappily married. Doesn’t it seem more sensible and humane to allow divorces to happen under a reasonable, well-understood law which would take much of the hostility out of divorce proceedings? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but again it appears to me the lawyer’s associations are favoring the status quo because it provides an income stream.
Thanks for hearing me out.
Jack
Jack:
Remember that very few cases go to trial, so this issue is not all about litigation. I think my colleagues are more concerned about the fact that it is extremely difficult to handle the issue of spousal support without a detailed consideration of the facts at hand. They system is certainly not perfect, but I don’t think 1785 is the exact answer either – although I think it is headed in the right direction! I think I will have job security no matter what. I hope you do not decide to stay unhappily married because of alimony. Not all cases involve unjust alimony awards or agreements as some info out there would have people believe. Thanks for your insightful post.
In response to admin’s answer to Jack..I would disagree. Jack HAS to concern himself ,as there are NO protections for him under current law. In contrast the law overwhelmingly favors his spouse. How can you beleive that there are ” fair” alimony awards ? When did anyone tell us when we got married that if we were the breadwinner we would be subject to supporting our ex-spouses in divorce ? The concept is “slavery” and violation of 13th amendment rights. People who pay alimony are enslaved finiancially ( in every case)..because we are paying for no srevices or goods rendered. Jack..I would stick to your plan unless reasonable laws are passed. Admin if your married ..stay married..divorce is a living h*ll for all that go through it..and if you are the breadwinner ..your h*ll continues for the rest of your life ..while your ex lives the life of riley…and yes I talk from not just my experience ..but literally EVERYONE I know that has gone through a divorce and pays alimony. THAT IS THE REALITY ! Marriage is supposed to be about trust and love..in the end it’s about $$$$$
Sorry Tom, but yes, I have seen fair alimony awards; and not just awards but plenty of times when people actually agree to pay substantial spousal support because they feel it is the right thing to do under the circumstances. The concept of spousal support is nothing new, so perhaps nobody told you about it when you got married, but it is certainly not something that most folks are unfamiliar with.
So, consider this typical scenario: The “breadwinner” is married and has a number of beautiful, bright children. The primary care-taker parent (we could call this person the bread-maker perhaps) had a good job and is well-educated, gives up the good job and works about 300 hours a week taking care of the kids, driving them all over the eastern seaboard to lessons, sports, doctor appointments, school, etc. Perhaps the at home spouse even does your laundry, makes food, keeps your nice house clean, and all of the things so you can be the bread-winner. This goes on for many years, since, after all, marriage is about supporting each other. In fact, one might even say that the at home spouses are enslaved – to use your own term- to being at home and taking care of lots of stuff.
Time marches on…fast forward 10 years or more… The at-home spouse has been out of work for a long time and of course that person does not have the resume or work experience since the at – home spouse was AT HOME taking care of you, your kids, the dog, etc. Maybe the at home spouse goes back to work part or full-time as the kids get older, but she or he is certainly not making what she or he would have if they had been working all along. Now, unfortunately, the marriage comes apart. Your opinion is that the very considerable contributions and career sacrifices that an at-home spouse made should just be cast aside, and fails to recognize some very basic principles that relate to the core of many families and other things like fairness and the partnership theory of marriage.
To think that spousal support is slavery is frankly ridiculous. If you want to feel enslaved try being home with a couple of sick kids, lots of laundry, dishes, and daytime TV. I was a “bread-maker” spouse during law school by the way. Anger can also enslave us.
There are unfair alimony decisions both in amounts and length. There are also unfair criminal convictions, unfair civil lawsuits, and I am too short for my weight. Not all alimony awards are unreasonable. Our system does a pretty decent job of dealing with these competing interests most of the time. Obviously, people don’t like paying alimony, but that does not mean that spousal support is unfair. There are protections for married people – luckily both people – in a marriage. I suggest you review all of the factors the court must consider when reaching an award of spousal support. Sure, there is clearly room for improvement in the alimony system, but plenty of people get divorced in a respectful manner and do not consider themselves to be in hell. Not everyone is as angry as you believe. You might not like it, but alimony has a place in many cases based upon long standing concepts. Not just legal concepts, either. The cases are fact-specific. Can a statute properly address all of these situations? Probably not, but some limitations and a more detailed statute would probably be an improvement.
As a side note, If your own situation seems unfair, then perhaps your order could be modified?
Admin..you may not believe this ..but I agree with you.In those situations it is warranted for a LIMITED time so that the receiving spouse can get their life back together. Unfortunately, the people who are up at arms have not come from that scenario. The receiving spouse is and has always been either lazy or has taken advantage of the marriage. They go to court as victims and with an attorney that is legally bound to represent them. Lies and ” legalized extortion” ( my attorneys words not mine) are played out in a courtroom and good people are hurt from this. The court has no means of determining nor laws detering these acts. I don’t think people who really think clearly blame the lawyers , the courts, or the judges involved. ..but the laws that allow this injustice to continue. By the way I was not only the breadwinner ..but I did all the duties you mentioned the “supporting spouse” was suposed to do . Clean house ,etc.So effectively I should be getting alimony by that standard.She was and still is a fuly capable R.N. who I supported while she went to school. She now works part-time and makes more than me.( with alimony) Get a modification…..that’s like walking into the lions den with a rubber knife. Until a clear law defines a clear way to not allow the abuses in the system ..the abuses will continue. I respect your outlook and you obviously represent your clients well..their are many who use the system to the disadvantage of people like myself…and the courts give no relief. Happy holidays !
Tom:
It does seem like you have not been served well by our current alimony system. Hopefully, there will be some improvements sooner than later. Thanks again for your contributions to the conversation!
Steve McDonough