In January 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued three major cases on the interpretation of the Alimony Reform Act of 2011. Here, we take a look at the second of those cases. The case, Rodman v. Rodman, deals with the question: “Does Mass General Law, Chapter 208, section 49(f), the provision establishing that reaching full retirement age is a basis for termination of alimony, apply to alimony awards entered into and merged into judgment prior to the effective date of the alimony reform act?”
While the court answered this question in the Chin case, issuing the opinion the same exact day as the opinion in Rodman, the arguments here are slightly different than those in Chin. Rodman involves a similarly merged alimony award. This award was in effect at the time the Alimony Reform Act became effective. However, here, Mr. Rodman argues that his alimony obligation should terminate because the provision of the agreement requiring the alimony payment was merged with the judgment. Under Massachusetts law, merged provisions are always modifiable.
Case Background
The background of this case is as follows. The parties divorced in 2008, after a very long term marriage, lasting 39 years. They settled their case by separation agreement. The separation agreement provided that the husband would pay the wife $1,539 a week in alimony until either party died or the wife remarried.
Complaint for Modification
The husband filed his complaint for modification in 2013. At that time, he asked the court to terminate his alimony obligation. The husband also asked the court to terminate his obligation to reimburse the ex-wife for the cost of health insurance payments. He further sought to terminate his obligation to provide life insurance for her benefit.
Mr. Rodman’s argument was distinct from that in the Chin case in that it cited a specific provision of the law in support of his interpretation of the legislative intent of the Act. Legislative intent is essentially the purpose the legislature had in enacting the Act. The more a judge understands about what the legislature was trying to accomplish with an act, the easier it is for a court to resolve ambiguities. Specifically, Mr. Rodman argued that because an uncodified provision of the Act provides that unmerged or otherwise nonmodifiable provisions of alimony agreements cannot be modified, then merged alimony words must remain modifiable. And, because the law added additional means for modifying or terminating, those additional means should be available to Mr. Rodman in modifying or terminating his obligation.
SJC Opinion
While a logical argument, the SJC came to a different conclusion. The SJC opined that legislative intent cannot be determined by review of a single provision within an act. Rather, the court must review the act as a whole. Although Mr. Rodman’s argument had some merit, when assessing the act as a whole, the counter-argument was more persuasive.
Contact Us
The Rodman case is a great example of the importance of having a competent, knowledgeable divorce and family law attorney by your side. In any divorce, there are various issues to resolve, and there is complexity with each. I encourage you to continue reading and educating yourself on Massachusetts alimony and divorce law. However, there is no substitute for an attorney consultation, which we offer at no charge. Call 978-225-9030 to schedule your consultation today.