Massachusetts Divorce Law...

Massachusetts Law - What Are Some Examples of Spousal Support Awards?

Here are some cases in which the focus was alimony awards.

Cases:

Wooters (1997) 677 NE2d 704 (The court awarded alimony of 1/3 of the husband's gross income each year. This was unusual, in that it was a variable amount, rather than an amount fixed in dollar terms. The husband was a partner at a major Boston law firm. At the time of divorce, he and his wife were both 52 yeas old. The marriage had lasted 29 years. The children were now grown. The husband's income had varied from $176,000 to $312,000 over the seven years before trial. The wife had not worked since she became pregnant with their first child. She was taking college courses, but the judge did not count her as earning any income. The reason the judge gave a percentage award, which would give a different amount each year, was that the husband was about to undergo a serious operation, and his future earning capacity was uncertain. The judge also ordered the husband to maintain life insurance on himself with the wife as beneficiary in the amount of $500,000, reducing by $100,000 every five years, to cover alimony in the event he should die.)

Moriarty v. Stone (1996) 668 NE2d 1338 (The wife was awarded assets worth approximately $850,000 and was also awarded alimony of $20,000 per year for four years. The alimony award was based on the following factors: Most of the wife's assets were in retirement funds; the wife could operate a jewelry business but needed time to get it running; the wife's standard of living had diminished since the separation and the husband's had not; and the husband had income around $230,000 a year and assets of approximately $1.9 million.)

Heins v. Ledis (1996) 664 NE2d 10 (The court concluded that, where the wife could accept a teaching job that would have given her an approximately equal standard of living to the marital standard, alimony was not appropriate. However, the lower court's property award could have been higher, to reimburse the wife for her lost investment in the husband's veterinary business. This marriage was a second marriage for both parties, had lasted about six years, and did not produce children.)

Rosenblatt (1995) (The court rejected the so-called "transition" theory of alimony -- where the goal is to transition the recipient's standard of living downward -- even in short-to-medium length childless marriage.)

Rosenberg (1992) 595 NE2d 792 (If the alimony is long term, its goal is to maintain the standard of living. The marriage had lasted 29 years. The couple's assets amounted to $22 million. The wife was awarded $5.3 million of assets, plus $2,000 per week alimony. The award of alimony gave the judge flexibility to raise or lower the overall award in the future should either party's circumstances change.)

Kehoe (1992) 583 NE2d 283 (The marriage in this case lasted 23 years. The husband was a partner in a large Boston law firm, earning $140,000 a year. (The firm later dissolved.) The children were out of the household. The wife was earning $112-$146 per week as a clerk, though she had a Ph.D. degree. The wife was now 57 years old and employment was not likely despite her degree. The court awarded the 2-family house to the wife, and held that the alimony award should be large enough to support her upper-middle-class lifestyle, assuming the husband's income remained approximately $140,000.)

Goldman (1990) 554 NE2d 860 (The parties had been married for 20 years. The husband was a doctor earning $478,000 plus substantial contributions to his pension plan. Total assets were almost $1.3 million, which the court divided approximately 47% to the wife and 53% to the husband. The lower court had limited alimony to 8 years. The appeals court found that the alimony should have been higher than the $1,600 per week awarded, and should have been permanent, to maintain the wife's station in life. The parties had two children in their late teens, one living with each parent.)

Barron (1990) 556 NE2d 111 (The marriage, a second marriage for both, had lasted approximately 10 years. The husband was 66 years old and the wife was 56. The judge rejected the lower court's decision to leave the parties with their personal assets which they had brought into the marriage. The husband's assets were valued at 654,000 and the wife's were valued at $339,000. The judge ordered the husband to pay alimony of $300 per week until the wife's death or remarriage. The husband had operated a business of which he was the sole employee. During the marriage, he had sold the business to his son, for an amount that was possibly below market value. The judge also forced the husband to pay medical insurance for the wife.)

Gordon (1988) 528 NE2d 876 (Alimony was granted to the husband in the amount of $50 a week for one year. This "rehabilitative" alimony was intended to prepare him to enter the work force. He was 60 years old and categorized as disabled by the Social Security administration. The property award gave him $42,000 of liquid assets. The husband claimed that the alimony award should have been made permanent. The judge found, however, that the husband could do woodworking, and earn some money from that. The husband had also been evasive in his financial testimony and apparently had conducted himself poorly during the marriage. So the judge allowed the order for $50 a week for only one year to stand. However, the judge allowed the husband to come back to court at the end of the year if no employment materialized.)

Email this page on to a friend.

Disclaimer: We are not giving legal advice. No warranties. We disclaim all legal liability. More...

Click here to go to top Massachusetts legal page.

Click here for the Massachusetts divorce legal table of contents.