Posts tagged "1013314"

Zaleski v. Zaleski (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-133-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11391   CAROLYN ZALESKI  vs.  STEPHEN ZALESKI. Essex.     December 3, 2013. – August 1, 2014.   Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.[1]     Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Division of property.       Complaint for divorce filed in the Essex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on December 20, 2010.   The case was heard by Amy Lyn Blake, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Paul P. Perocchi (Cynthia Grover Hastings with him) for the wife. David E. Cherny (Catharine V. Blake with him) for the husband.     DUFFLY, J.  The Alimony Reform Act of 2011, St. 2011, c. 124 (alimony reform act or act), changed the legal framework under which courts may award alimony when a marriage ends in divorce.  The act created four categories of alimony:  “[g]eneral term alimony,” “[r]ehabilitative alimony,” “[r]eimbursement alimony,” and “[t]ransitional alimony,” and placed durational limits on the length of time alimony may be paid absent specific extenuating circumstances as found by a judge before the statutory period expires.  See G. L. c. 208, §§ 48-52.  We are asked to decide in this case of first impression whether a Probate and Family Court judge abused her discretion in determining that rehabilitative alimony, with its presumptive five-year payment period, was the appropriate form of alimony to be ordered, rather than general term alimony, which, based on the length of the parties’ marriage, would have permitted alimony payments to continue for thirteen years. In December, 2010, Carolyn Zaleski (wife) filed a complaint for divorce from Stephen Zaleski (husband) on the ground of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.  Following trial, judgment entered granting a divorce nisi on the basis of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, see G. L. c. 208, § 1B, awarding rehabilitative alimony to the wife, dividing the marital assets, and incorporating a stipulation of the parties regarding the custody and education of their two children.  The wife appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. The wife challenges that portion of the judgment ordering the husband to pay rehabilitative alimony rather than general term alimony.  She also challenges the judge’s exclusion of the husband’s bonus income from the calculation of the amount of the alimony award; the requirement that she […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 1, 2014 at 4:48 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,