The Recent History of Alimony in Massachusetts: From Discretion to Reform and Back Again?

Alimony in Massachusetts has gone through dramatic changes over the past two decades.



Alimony in Massachusetts has gone through dramatic changes over the past two decades. Prior to 2011, alimony awards were governed by a vague statutory framework that granted wide discretion to judges. Subsequent reforms brought predictability and consistency—but recent developments, including a major Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, have again created uncertainty about alimony in the many cases that involve child support. This post summarizes this brief history, critiques the often chaotic legal landscape, and offers a technical tool that is useful for anyone considering alimony post-2022 in Massachusetts.

Before 2011: A Vague and Discretionary System

Before the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act of 2011, the awarding of alimony was governed by M.G.L. c. 208, § 34, which granted judges broad discretion. The statute reads:

“In determining the amount of alimony, if any, to be paid, the court shall consider the length of the marriage, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties…”1

While the law listed many possible factors to consider, it provided nothing in the way of specific guidance, e.g., how different factors should be weighed and how they might affect an eventual award. Without clear guidelines for judges, alimony awards varied wildly in amount and duration from one courtroom to another. In some cases, alimony could continue indefinitely, and in others, it might be denied entirely. This uncertainty made it difficult for divorcing spouses or their attorneys to predict outcomes or negotiate settlements within some set of accepted boundaries.

The 2011 Alimony Reform Act: A Push for Predictability

In response to widespread dissatisfaction with the inconsistencies of the old system, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Alimony Reform Act of 2011, which took effect in March 2012. This law significantly reshaped alimony awards, establishing types of alimony, durational limits, and clearer standards.

Under M.G.L. c. 208, § 48–55, the Act defines different types of alimony (general term, rehabilitative, reimbursement, and transitional), and limits the duration of general term alimony based on the length of the marriage:

“General term alimony shall terminate upon the remarriage of the recipient, the death of either party, or upon the payor attaining full retirement age.”2

The duration of the alimony was determined by the length of the marriage, and the dollar value of alimony was typically capped at 30-35% of the difference between the higher-earning and lower-earning spouses’ incomes.

For example, if a marriage lasted fewer than 10 years, the duration of alimony would generally not exceed 60% of the number of months of the marriage. The law also allowed modification or termination of alimony upon cohabitation of the recipient.

The 2011 law was widely seen as a success in making alimony awards more consistent and predictable, especially in reducing so-called "lifetime alimony" for short- and mid-length marriages. It did reserve possible lifetime alimony award (until the payor reached full social security age) for marriages that lasted over 20 years.

2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Alimony Gets More Expensive for Payors

Another major change came not from Massachusetts, but from Washington, D.C. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, which took effect for divorces finalized after December 31, 2018, made a dramatic change to the taxation of alimony. Previously, alimony was deductible to the payor and taxable to the recipient. The TCJA ended the deductibility of alimony for the payor and tax liability for the recipient:

“Alimony and separate maintenance payments are not deductible by the payor spouse, and are not included in the income of the recipient spouse.”3

This change increased the effective cost of alimony to payors, since they could no longer deduct the payments from their taxable income, and it increased the value for recipients, who would not pay taxes on the alimony received. As a result, Massachusetts bar associations, family lawyers, and bloggers have recommended a lower ceiling (e.g. 23-28% of the difference between incomes) for alimony payments, and judges appear to be responding to that.

2022: Cavanagh v. Cavanagh and the New Confusion

In 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398 (2022), that upended longstanding practice around the coordination of alimony and child support.

In the case, the initial trial court awarded only child support, declining to consider awarding alimony in addition to child support. The SJC ruled that an award of child support cannot rule out alimony, and the judge needs to decide what type of award—child support or child support+alimony—is most just:

“The statutes governing alimony and child support are not mutually exclusive. A judge has discretion to award both forms of support, and must consider whether doing so is appropriate in each case.”4

The Court emphasized that judges must “consider all forms of support available” and perform the calculations for both child support and alimony before deciding how to structure support. However, it offered no tool for calculating “combined orders” or deciding what kind of order to make.

The result? Confusion in trial courts. Many judges continue using the practices they used before Cavanagh, awarding just one form of support or skipping over the required calculations.

Many judges are intimidated by the calculations required to comply with Cavanagh, especially when trying to strike a balance between tax effects, fairness, and statutory compliance. But they don’t have to be.

A Tool to Simplify Cavanagh Calculations

To navigate the complexity of Cavanagh, practitioners and judges can use tools designed to automate the process. One such resource is the online calculator developed by Boston divorce mediator and attorney Julia Rueschemeyer, which incorporates the Cavanagh requirements.

Her calculator:

  • Performs the required child support and alimony comparisons;
  • Automatically adjusts for tax effects;
  • Produces a downloadable report that is easy for judges and clients to understand.

For lawyers, judges, and self-represented parties alike, technical tools such as Attorney Rueschemeyer’s Cavanagh calculator can do the heavy lifting on calculations, allowing parties to debate and consider the fairness of different alimony awards.

Footnotes

  1. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34. Link to statute
  2. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 49. Link to statute
  3. Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 215 (repealed by TCJA for divorces after 2018). See IRS Publication 504
  4. Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398 (2022). Link to decision

Original Source of the original story >> The Recent History of Alimony in Massachusetts: From Discretion to Reform and Back Again?




Website of Source: https://www.amherstdivorce.com/



Source: Story.KISSPR.com
Release ID: 1601868