Divorce litigants in Massachusetts may not clearly understand the distinction between those provisions in a Separation Agreement regarding child support and those provisions regarding the payment of the child(ren)'s expenses. Both types of provisions are merged into the Judgment of Divorce, meaning that the court can modify them in appropriate cases. Generally speaking, the standard for modifying a child support order is that there must be "an inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount that would result from the application of the Massachusetts child support guidelines." M. G. L. c. 208, § 28. In contrast, the standard for modifying any provisions about payment of a child's expenses is that there must have been a "material change in circumstances" since the entry of the judgment that is being modified.
In Casey v. Sweeney, a recent decision of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, the court declined to provide clarification on the meaning of a statutory provision that has puzzled commentators and practitioners since it came into effect on March 1st 2012. The provision at issue is M.G.L. c 208 s 53(c)(2), which reads:
In a recent case, Macri v. Macri, the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently cemented a trial court decision to, among other things, attribute income to Husband, who was unemployed at the time of trial. Attribution of income is often a contested topic in the Probate and Family Courts of Massachusetts, and this case provides further guidance on the issue.
The vast majority of divorce cases are resolved not by trial, but by the parties agreeing upon and submitting a Separation Agreement to the Probate and Family Court for approval. One of the more confusing elements of a Separation Agreement for many clients is the fact that certain provisions of the agreement are deemed to "merge" with the Judgment of Divorce and other provisions are deemed to "survive." Although these terms may be unfamiliar to non-attorneys, the distinction between the two is not particularly complex.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently addressed this issue in Miles v. Beusch, Docket 17-P-1511 (Mass. App. Ct. January 24, 2019) (Memorandum and Order Pursuant to Rule 1:28). In that case, the former Husband appealed the trial court's decision to attribute income to him for the purpose of calculating child support.
The new tax reform bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1), which was signed into law on December 22, 2017, eliminates (http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/15/pf/taxes/alimony-tax-bill/index.html) the tax deduction for alimony payments for separation agreements and divorces obtained after December 31, 2018.
Many clients describe the Rule 401 financial statement as "a giant pain," "putting square pegs into round holes," or "the most annoying thing I've ever done in my life." While filling out a financial statement can often be fairly simple, sometimes it can take days or even weeks of work. Filing a financial statement may actually happen many times over the course of a proceeding, and the parties may even choose informally to exchange financial statements on a voluntary basis. Why is it then, that almost every party to a domestic relations matter has to fill out a financial statement?
On August 30, 2016, President Obama signed the instrument of ratification for the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. A White House press release of the same date describes the Convention's "numerous groundbreaking provisions that, for the first time on a global scale, will establish uniform, simple, fast, and inexpensive procedures for the processing of international child support cases, which benefits children and those responsible for their care."
Recognizing a child's need/right to receive financial support from both parents - even when those parents are apart - the DOR employs various methods to assist families in enforcing court-ordered child support obligations.
In a recent appeal arising from a post-divorce modification action, Hoegen v. Hoegen (14-P-1491), the Massachusetts Appeals Court decided that income realized from vested restricted stock units (RSUs) must be included in the calculation of child support.
In a recent decision, a panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered a Probate and Family Court's modification judgment ordering the payment of additional child support that was calculated based upon the portion of the parties' joint income in excess of $250,000. Martin v. Martin, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 (2015) (pursuant to Rule 1:28).
The cross-border enforcement of child support has long bedeviled parents and children who seek a delinquent parent's compliance with a court order. Given the many difficulties inherent to the enforcement of court orders in foreign jurisdictions, as well as the heavy costs associated with those efforts, many parents had a difficult time registering and enforcing child support orders if the debtor was in another country.
Massachusetts Courts allow for the filing of a Joint Petition For Modification Of Child Support Judgment, when both parents agree that an adjustment to an existing child support judgment is warranted. Recent amendments to the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines provide that a child support judgment may be modified when "there is an inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount that would result from the application of the Child Support Guidelines." Modifying child support by joint petition may streamline uncontested support modification actions, as the Court may address such matters administratively and without the need for a hearing.
Following what is described as a comprehensive review of the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Task Force, the Chief Justice of Massachusetts Trial Court released new Child Support Guidelines that became effective on August 1, 2013. In the Trial Court's June 20, 2013 Press Release, it is noted that these revised Guidelines, which supersede any previous Guidelines, are intended to take into consideration current economic realities facing families in Massachusetts.
Flowers are blooming, temperatures are rising --- Spring is in the air. Wedding season is upon us - save the date postcards were mailed in January and June wedding dates are just around the corner. Just when you think all the wedding planning is almost complete, one of the parties raises the issue of prenuptial agreements.
Amendments to Supplemental Probate Court Rule 412, which currently provides the method by which a child support judgment may be modified by agreement, may soon be expanded to include a method by which parties to an action may seek to modify, by agreement, any judgment or temporary order of the Probate and Family Court. (That said, actions under M.G.L. 209A, which govern abuse prevention orders, are specifically excluded from the modification procedures outlined in Supplemental Probate Court Rule 412.)
Registering a child support order that was obtained in another state or even in another country is accomplished in Massachusetts by following the procedure outlined in M.G.L. c. 209D. Otherwise known as the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"), this statutory scheme allows petitioners to register and enforce child support orders here in Massachusetts even though they were obtained in another state or country.
Business owners and their spouses involved in a pending divorce should consider various issues specifically related to business ownership. Here are a few of such considerations: