Posts tagged "1015217"

Young v. Young (and a consolidated case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-152-17)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   SJC-12240   DEREK L. YOUNG  vs.  JOY G. YOUNG (and a consolidated case[1]).       Norfolk.     March 6, 2017. – September 25, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.[2]     Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Findings.       Complaints for divorce filed in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on January 29 and February 5, 2013.   After consolidation, the case was heard by Jennifer M.R. Ulwick, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     David H. Lee (Jessica M. Dubin also present) for the husband. David E. Cherny (Erin M. Shapiro also present) for the wife. Sanford Durland, III, & Glenn M. Schley, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Jennifer C. Roman & Johnathan P. Diggin, for Women’s Bar Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.     GANTS, C.J.  The Probate and Family Court judge in this divorce action made two rulings that are the primary subjects of this appeal.  First, the judge found that, where the husband’s income from his employment was “on an upward trajectory,” the wife may only maintain a standard of living “consistent with the marital lifestyle (which was one where the parties[‘] needs expanded in accordance with the increasingly available income)” by an award of general term alimony that increases commensurate with the increase in the husband’s income.  Second, the judge found that, because of “the complex nature of [the husband’s] compensation over and above his base salary and bonus,” and because of “the constantly shifting nature of [the husband’s] compensation,” “it is reasonable and fair in the circumstances” to award alimony to the wife in the amount of thirty-three per cent of the husband’s gross income, rather than a fixed amount. We conclude that, where the supporting spouse (here, the husband) has the ability to pay, the need for support of the recipient spouse (here, the wife) under general term alimony is the amount required to enable her to maintain the standard of living she had at the time of the separation leading to the divorce, not the amount required to enable her to maintain the standard of living she would have had in the future if the couple had not divorced.  We also conclude that, although there might be circumstances where it […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 25, 2017 at 8:24 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,