In the Massachusetts Appeals Court case, S.S. v. S.S., Turco Legal partner Maureen Booth successfully argued on behalf of her client that the Probate and Family Court erred when it deviated from the presumptive durational limit on alimony during a divorce proceeding. Finding a deviation was necessary, the probate court ordered Booth’s client, the husband, to pay alimony to the wife potentially for the rest of her life. Had the judge not deviated from the durational limit, the husband’s alimony obligation would have instead terminated about eight years post-divorce. The judge based her decision on evidence of the wife’s “‘significant mental illness’ which renders her ‘currently unable to engage in employment.'”

The Appeals Court ultimately agreed with Booth and her client, finding that the probate judge should not have deviated. While the probate judge’s findings demonstrated that the wife was unable to work at the time of divorce due to her mental illness, nothing in the judge’s findings indicated that her mental illness and in turn her inability to work would continue beyond the presumptive alimony termination date. “With respect to the duration of the husband’s alimony payments,” the Appeal Court said, “we agree that the judge should not have deviated from the presumptive limit because the wife failed to meet her burden of showing that the asserted ground for deviation, her mental health condition and resulting inability to work, is reasonably likely to persist beyond the presumptive termination date.”

 

Attorney Booth Regarding the Decision’s Impact

Booth explained, “The S.S. v. S.S. case clarified an ambiguity in the existing law regarding deviation from the presumptive durational limit of a party’s alimony order in the original divorce action. There have been cases that clarified the standards for deviation in modification actions, but this case involved a judge deviating from the presumptive durational limits in the judgment of divorce itself by ordering that the husband pay alimony until the death of one of the parties or the wife’s remarriage. The Appeals Court found that the judge erred by doing so and by shifting the burden to modify to the payor (husband), and remanded the case to the trial court for the judgment to be corrected to reflect that alimony will terminate in approximately 8 years.”

The Probate and Family Court will now enter an amended divorce judgment stating that the husband’s alimony obligation will terminate according to the presumptive durational limits. Our congratulations to Attorney Booth and her client on this win.

 

Background

The wife and husband married in India on October 25, 2009. They had their first child in February 2014. And then, in September 2020, the wife delivered their second child. Sadly, their second child was stillborn.

Throughout the entire marriage, the husband worked at a university in Boston. He did so since obtaining his Ph.D. in 2004. Meanwhile, the wife obtained a master’s degree in urban health in 2018. She worked as a dental assistant at times during the marriage.

On May 20, 2021, after about 11 and a half years of marriage, the husband filed for divorce. The divorce trial occurred on January 10, 2023. During the trial, the judge admitted the following two documents as evidence. First, the judge admitted a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) report covering child custody and parenting plan issues. The judge also admitted the parties’ stipulation of uncontested facts. We discuss both below.

 

GAL Report: Wife’s Mental Health

In his report, the GAL described three mental health evaluations that the wife underwent as well as information from the wife’s therapist.

First, in 2018, the wife underwent a mental health evaluation in connection with a District Court criminal case. The evaluating doctor, Dr. Gray, diagnosed the wife with delusional disorder, persecutory type, at that time. Dr. Gray did not rule out schizophrenia.

Then, while the wife was visiting India in 2019, another evaluator diagnosed her with schizophrenia. That evaluator indicated that follow-up was necessary; however, there was no follow-up.

Lastly, in 2021, a psychiatrist named Timothy Scarella evaluated the wife. During this evaluation, the wife acknowledged that she was depressed. Yet she denied experiencing paranoia or delusions. She claimed Dr. Gray misdiagnosed her in 2018. Dr. Scarella “reported a working diagnosis of ‘[m]ajor [d]epressive disorder, single episode, severe, partial remission.'”

Also in 2021, the wife’s therapist reported that the wife was “‘relatively clinically stable,'” did not show any signs of schizophrenia, and was working to manage ‘her depressive and anxiety symptoms.'”

The GAL ultimately decided that the wife’s “‘diagnosis and treatment still need clarification.'” The GAL recommended that a mental health case manager help the wife develop a treatment plan for her needs.

 

Parties’ Stipulation Regarding Wife’s Mental Health

In their stipulation of uncontested facts, the parties agreed that Dr. Gray diagnosed the wife with delusional disorder, persecutory type. Moreover, they agreed that Dr. Gray could not rule out schizophrenia. Additionally, the parties stipulated that they told the GAL that an evaluator in India diagnosed the wife with schizophrenia. They said this happened during visits to India in 2018. (While the Appeals Court noted the date discrepancy, the court found it immaterial to its analysis.) The wife also took medicine for schizophrenia as a result.

The parties further agreed that the wife’s “‘mental health is impaired'” and she is, in turn, “‘limited in her ability to work and care for the child.'”

 

Trial Court: Deviation from Presumptive Durational Limit on Alimony Warranted

At the divorce trial, the Probate and Family Court awarded the wife general term alimony. In doing so, the judge considered the evidence regarding the wife’s mental health and inability to work.

In Massachusetts, the length of time an alimony recipient can receive general term alimony is based on the length of the marriage. For example, if the marriage lasted 12 months, alimony could last for no more than 6 months. The time limits under Massachusetts’ alimony laws are known as the presumptive durational limits on alimony. However, the Probate and Family Court can deviate from the durational limits for general term alimony if it makes a written finding that deviation is “required in the interests of justice.”

The probate judge deviated from the Massachusetts durational limits on alimony here. Finding that the wife suffers from “‘significant mental health issues,'” the judge ordered the husband to pay alimony to the wife until either party’s death, the wife’s remarriage, or further order of the court, whichever is first to occur. Essentially, the judge ordered the husband to pay alimony to the wife potentially for the rest of her life. (The husband was born in 1974, and the wife was born in 1983.)

Contrast the judge’s order with what would have happened had the judge not deviated and instead applied the presumptive durational limit on alimony. Had the judge applied the durational limit here, the husband’s alimony obligation would’ve terminated ninety-seven months post-divorce. So, the husband would have paid alimony to the wife for about eight years (presumably for much less time than what the judge ultimately ordered).

The probate judge reasoned that the interests of justice warranted this deviation—since the wife’s mental health renders her currently unable to work and entirely dependent on the husband for support.

The husband appealed.

 

Appeals Court on Alimony Duration Deviation

On appeal, the husband, represented by Turco Legal partner Maureen Booth, argued that the interests of justice did not warrant a deviation in this case. The husband reasoned that, although the wife’s mental illness currently limits her ability to work, there’s no evidence that the wife’s condition is permanent. The husband also asserted that the probate judge should have enforced the ninety-seven-month presumptive durational limit on alimony here. And, that the wife can later file a modification complaint for more alimony if her mental condition is likely to impact her ability to work beyond that limit.

 

Appeals Court agrees with the husband: Probate judge should not have deviated from the presumptive durational limit on alimony.

Agreeing with the husband, the Appeals Court found that a deviation from the durational limit on alimony was not warranted. “For marriages such as this one,” the Appeals Court said, “the presumptive durational limits apply unless the recipient spouse ‘prov[es] by a preponderance of the evidence that deviation beyond the presumptive termination date is ‘required in the interests of justice.'”

 

The wife failed to prove that her ground for deviation is likely to persist beyond the presumptive termination date.

In deciding whether to deviate, the probate judge must look at the parties’ circumstances “‘in the here and now,'” the Appeals Court explained. If an alimony recipient requests a deviation during a divorce proceeding (like in this case), the recipient must prove that justice warrants a deviation at the time of divorce. But, in turn, the alimony recipient must also prove that the reasons for deviation “are reasonably likely to be present beyond the presumptive termination date.”

In this case, the probate judge found that the wife is currently unable to work. She didn’t make findings about whether the wife’s mental illness and inability to work would continue past the presumptive alimony termination date. For example, the judge didn’t indicate that the wife’s mental health condition cannot be treated. Nor did the judge find that the wife’s condition will likely prevent her from working beyond the ninety-seven-month durational limit. Without such evidence, the wife failed to prove that a deviation now, at the time of the divorce, would serve the interests of justice.

“With respect to the duration of the husband’s alimony payments, we agree that the judge should not have deviated from the presumptive limit because the wife failed to meet her burden of showing that the asserted ground for deviation, her mental health condition and resulting inability to work, is reasonably likely to persist beyond the presumptive termination date,” the Appeals Court held.

 

The Probate and Family Court improperly shifted the burden to the husband.

Moreover, the Appeals Court added that in deviating from the durational limit, the probate court improperly shifted the burden onto the husband. This means the husband must file a complaint for modification to terminate his alimony obligation on the presumptive termination date if the deviation stands. The Appeals Court found that the burden should actually be on the wife to file a modification complaint to extend the husband’s alimony obligation beyond the presumptive date. And, in that case, the wife must prove that justice warrants a deviation at the time of the modification.

 

The Appeals Court vacated the portions of the divorce judgment regarding the duration of alimony and remanded the case for entry of an amended judgment.

Ultimately, the Appeals Court vacated the portions of the divorce judgment pertaining to the duration of the husband’s alimony obligation. The Appeals Court also remanded the matter back to the probate court. The Probate and Family Court must now enter an amended judgment stating that the husband’s alimony obligation will terminate according to the presumptive durational limits (after about 8 years post-divorce).

 

Contact Us

With over 100 years of combined attorney experience, we have exceptional knowledge and skill in divorce and family law litigation. Contact us if you’d like to better understand your rights and options. You can schedule a free consultation by calling 866-382-3817. Or you can click the button below.