In a situation where the spouses are accustomed to an upper-class lifestyle, may one spouse receive alimony based on her expectation that the other spouse’s income will be on an upward trajectory? It’s an interesting issue. There is admittedly some ambiguity in the statute, even after reformed in 2011. Here I, a divorce lawyer, assess the SJC’s latest ruling on alimony. May a receiving spouse assert entitlement to a higher future alimony amount because of expecting an improved lifestyle? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court discussed and decided this issue in a recent decision.

Background:

Young v. Young involved a couple married for nearly 24 years before cross-filing for divorce. SJC-12240 (March 6, 2017 – September 25, 2017). The trial judge found that the husband worked as a “high level executive” and received various forms of compensation; the judge also considered the couple’s affluent lifestyle. Based on this, the judge awarded the wife $48,950 per month in alimony payments. The husband’s compensation had a constantly shifting nature. Thus, the judge awarded alimony as 33% of the husband’s gross income, rather than as a fixed monthly amount.

Upward trajectory:

The trial judge reasoned: “Because the parties lived with the expectation and reality that [the husband’s] bonus level is on an upward trajectory, and given the fact that their needs historically followed this upward trajectory, and due to the complex nature of [the husband’s] compensation over and above his base salary and bonus, it is reasonable and fair in the circumstances to use a percentage for the future alimony particularly given the constantly shifting nature of [the husband’s] compensation.” Young, at 6.

Appeal:

The husband and his lawyer appealed. In reviewing the case, the Supreme Judicial Court made an important decision; this regarded the alimony in cases where a couple’s standard of living entailed an upward trajectory. The court concluded what the need for support is in cases where the supporting spouse has the ability to pay. It’s the amount necessary for the receiving spouse to maintain the previous standard of living leading up to the divorce. It is NOT the amount necessary for a standard of living the couple would have enjoyed in the future; that is, it does not reflect the lifestyle had the couple not divorced.

Rationale:

“Even if the parties enjoyed an upwardly mobile lifestyle for the duration of their marriage, nothing in the language of the statute or our case law suggests that the recipient spouse is entitled, by way of alimony, to enjoy a lifestyle beyond what he or she experienced during the marriage,” the Court noted. Young, at 11.

Abuse of discretion:

Additionally, the Court stated that percentage-based alimony amounts did not automatically run afoul of the law; however, in this particular case, the judge abused discretion. “Here, the percentage-based award ran afoul of the act and therefore was an abuse of discretion not because of its variable nature, but because it was intended to award the wife an amount of alimony that exceeds her need to maintain the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage,” the Court explained. When devising strategy, a lawyer must remember, “There may be cases in which a variable or contingent award is warranted, but such cases are the exception rather than the rule, and must be justified by the special circumstances of the case.”

Contact us:

Are you looking for a Newburyport or Andover divorce lawyer? Have questions about issues of divorce, alimony, or property division? You may schedule a free consultation with our office. Our experienced attorneys would certainly be happy to help. Call 978-225-9030 during regular business hours. Or, complete a contact form here. We will get back to you as soon as we can.