The third case issued by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on January 30, 2015, was Doktor v. Doktor. As in Chin and Rodman, this case dealt with the issue of an existing alimony award, merged into final judgment, and the application of the retirement provisions of the Alimony Reform Act of 2011. This is the third case addressing whether alimony established before the Act can end when the payor retires. Similarly, in the other two cases, the court ruled it cannot end without a material change in circumstances, which was the standard before the Act.
Just a little background on this case to give you some context. Joseph and Dorothy were married 20 years and divorced in 1992. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 became effective on March 1, 2012. Through the course of their marriage, the parties lived a pretty lavish lifestyle. The trial court found they lived in a nice four-bedroom colonial home. They vacationed annually with the kids. The husband regularly bought the wife jewelry.
The husband agreed to pay the wife $200 weekly after their divorce. This payment continues until one of them dies or the wife remarries. None of these things happened, of course, but the husband did eventually reach retirement age. In June 2013, the husband filed a complaint for modification. He sought termination of alimony, citing his full retirement age and the claim that she no longer needed it.
The SJC ruled similarly to the other two alimony cases released on the same day. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 applies prospectively, not retroactively, to cases established before its effective date of March 1, 2012, except in very limited circumstances. While there is an exception regarding the length of alimony, it cannot be terminated just because the payor has reached retirement age.
The Court did not review the case due to the issue that the wife no longer required alimony. However, it’s valuable to analyze the case. It provides parties and lawyers insight into how similar cases may fare in court.
The SJC addressed the issue of the wife’s alimony requirement. It noted that the trial court judge properly considered their marital lifestyle. The divorce had occurred over 20 years ago.
The court considered the lifestyle as explained above and further noted that, although each party walked away from the divorce with significant assets, it would be unfair to require the wife to spend her assets in order to maintain the same lifestyle she lived during the marriage. The court also found that while the husband maintained a similar lifestyle after the divorce, the wife significantly downgraded. I should also note that the parties stipulated that the husband did still have the ability to pay the $200 in weekly alimony, and so the analysis was more on her need for the money to maintain her former lifestyle.
The trial judge found she did in fact need the $200 a week to get by, even to cover her then-existing expenses, which were significantly lower than her marital expenses. Accordingly, the trial judge dismissed the action for the husband’s failure to establish a material change in circumstances.
Alimony can certainly be a tricky issue, and no doubt the parties and all three of these cases spent significant resources getting through their cases. This area of the law can be complicated and continues to evolve. All the more reason to continue to educate yourself and build your foundational knowledge. However, there is no substitute to meeting with a knowledgeable and experienced divorce lawyer who is able to apply the law, in its current state, to the facts of your case. We offer free attorney consultations in our Newburyport, Andover, and Boston offices. Call 978-225-9030 to schedule your consultation today.