Lawyers e-Journal

Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009
Image for Court news

News from the Courts

SJC rules that voluntary retirement does not create a rebuttable presumption that alimony should terminate; Concord Probate and Family Court Session temporarily closed

In a recent Supreme Judicial Court Pierce v. Pierce ruling, the court has found that voluntary retirement does not create a rebuttable presumption that alimony should terminate.

"We granted Rudolph's application for direct appellate review to consider whether a former spouse's voluntary retirement from employment at or beyond the customary age of sixty-five should create a rebuttable presumption under the statutes governing the award of alimony (G.L. c. 208, §§ 34, 37) that any alimony obligation owed by the retiring spouse should be terminated. We conclude that the statutes and interpretative case law governing the determination of the amount of alimony do not reasonably permit such a presumption. Instead, we hold that voluntary retirement at a customary age is simply one factor, albeit an important one, to be considered by the judge in deciding whether to modify the alimony obligation set forth in a divorce judgment. We conclude that the judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that a reduction in the amount of alimony, but not a termination of alimony, was warranted in view of the totality of the circumstances, which in this case included not only Rudolph's age and wish to retire but also Carneice's recent loss of employment and desire to postpone her application for Social Security benefits until she became eligible for full retirement benefits."

Click here to review the decision. Select the opinions link under Supreme Judicial Court.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probate and Family Court announces temporary closure of the Concord Probate and Family Court Session


It is with deep regret that the Probate and Family Court announces the temporary closure of the Concord session of the Probate and Family Court due to the budget crisis and the shortage of staff to run the sessions in Concord. The effective date of this change is January 1, 2010. The suspension is expected to be temporary and the Probate and Family Court will work to open the session when able to obtain sufficient staff.

The Probate and Family Court will continue operating the Marlboro and Lowell sessions. The Cambridge Probate and Family Court will attempt to accommodate those traveling long distances in the Cambridge, Marlboro and Lowell sessions. Additionally, the current policy of uncontested cases being heard by any judge, independent of the individual calendar system, will continue in Marlboro provided prior arrangements are made.

©2012 Massachusetts Bar Association