The probate and family courts are very busy places. Each judge has about 1,000 cases. Sitting in a courtroom and observing the various cases—along with their arguments, emails, text messages, and emotional outcries—reveals the complexity of the situation. In these cases, judges often face complicated legal issues. Despite this, they have limited time to carefully consider all the facts and render a fair and equitable decision. Like all of us, judges are only human and make mistakes too. Fortunately, when a party appeals a mistake, we all learn something about this area of divorce law.
Today, we are discussing the recent decision of Frost-Stuart v. Stuart. The court in that case addressed two main issues. The first issue is alimony, and we have resolved it multiple times. The judge missed it due to timing in controlling decisions. So, first, we’ll discuss that alimony issue. Then we’ll move on to the child support issue that is the subject of this article.
Here, the Appeals Court revisited the issue of alimony modification. It discussed the standard that applies when a judge issued the original order before the Alimony Reform Act of 2011. The second issue relates to attribution of income to a parent and a child support calculation. The court then goes on to deal with multiple contempt issues. The Appeals Court remands all matters to the trial court. The trial judge must complete additional work to resolve issues one and two.
What standard applies in a Massachusetts alimony modification when the original order issued in 2010?
Massachusetts alimony law changed dramatically upon the enactment of the Alimony Reform Act of 2011. Among other things, the act established cohabitation as a basis to terminate palimony. The act states that if the recipient spouse cohabits with another individual for three months or longer, it may justify alimony modification. It may also lead to a reduction or termination of alimony.
After the act became effective, the payers of alimony filed a flurry of actions to terminate it. Many of these cases, which had been on the books for years, were brought by the payers of alimony. The payers sought to end their obligations based on the new law.
The court then decided three pivotal cases, clarifying the law. We have already discussed all cases, including the Chin case, so we won’t repeat details here. The law is clear: if a court decided your alimony case before the new law, it applies the old standard. This standard requires proof of a substantial, material change in circumstances to modify or terminate alimony. Unfortunately, the trial court judge didn’t have the Chin opinion due to the timing of the decision, as the appeals court noted.
Accordingly, the judge made the same mistake as in the other cases, terminating alimony based on the new statute. Of course, as in the other cases, this court reversed and remanded to the trial court to fix its error.
Can the Court consider the income of the recipient’s cohabitant (such as boyfriend, girlfriend or new spouse) in determining the recipient’s income for the purpose of calculating child support?
The second issue presented in escape has to do with the attribution of income in a child support determination. To give you a sense of the background, the father works as a portfolio manager at an investment management company. He earns over $600,000 annually. The mother is unemployed and has been for a long time. The father argued that the court should attribute income to the mother when determining child support in that case. Attribution of income means the court assumes a party has a higher income than they actually do. Under Massachusetts law, if a parent earns less than their potential through reasonable effort, the court can factor in potential earnings when calculating child support.
In this case, the judge attributed annual earnings of $16,682 to her, based on the minimum wage, considering her unemployment. Interestingly, the judge also attributed an additional annual contribution of $27,000 which represented the entirety of her boyfriend’s annual Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits. Basically, the mother had moved in with her boyfriend whose only income was SSDI. The court counted all of the boyfriend’s income as though it were income of the mother. The appeals court reversed.
While the appeals Court found the trial judge’s analysis as it relates to the minimum wage attribution to be acceptable, the Court found that without other findings, it would be improper to attribute the income of the boyfriend to the mother. The Court left the door open on whether the boyfriend’s SSDI could count as income for the mother in certain circumstances, making this really interesting.
The Court listed several facts that would help analyze such a situation, including the lack of an obligation for the mother’s boyfriend to support the children, how the mother’s and children’s lifestyles change due to the SSDI, the discretion of the mother’s boyfriend in paying those funds, and how the mother would support her household without those funds. The judgment reversed that portion, but it gave us the framework to use in analyzing such a situation in future cases.
Contact Us
Yet another case on the Alimony Reform Act, and an interesting consideration of what income should be considered attributable in a child-support calculation, including specifically the benefit of income received from a new significant other. These issues can be complicated, and I recommend that if you’re dealing with them, you consult with an experienced divorce lawyer. To schedule a free consultation with our office, call 978-225-9030 during regular business hours for complete a contact form here and we will get back to you at our earliest opportunity.