Posts tagged "Hassey"

Hassey v. Hassey (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-074-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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       13‑P‑864                                        Appeals Court   MARYELLEN S. HASSEY  vs.  EDWARD P. HASSEY.     No. 13‑P‑864. Essex.     March 5, 2014.  ‑  June 25, 2014. Present:  Kafker, Fecteau, & Agnes, JJ.       Alimony Reform Act.  Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Division of property, Modification of judgment.       Complaint for divorce filed in the  Essex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on October 28, 2009.   The case was heard by Jeffrey A. Abber, J.     John A. Macoul for Edward P. Hassey. Joseph L. Doherty, Jr., for Maryellen S. Hassey.       AGNES, J.  The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 (Act)[1] is “a comprehensive effort to address numerous issues in alimony law,” including the elimination of “any historical connection to gender status or outdated gender stereotypes,” clarification of various types of alimony, and recognition of durational limits on alimony awards.  Kindregan, Reforming Alimony:  Massachusetts Reconsiders Postdivorce Spousal Support, 46 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 13, 16, 18 (2013).  In this case, we review the application of key provisions of the Act, which has received only limited appellate consideration. The husband appeals from an amended judgment of divorce nisi entered August 30, 2012, by the Probate and Family Court, excluding the wife’s interest in certain real property from the marital estate, and establishing a “self-modifying” alimony order.  The husband contends that the alimony order does not comport with the guidelines of the Act, and that the exclusion of the wife’s property from the divisible estate was plainly wrong.  For the reasons that follow, we conclude it is necessary to vacate the amended judgment in part and remand for further proceedings. Background.  a.  Evidence.  The parties married on September 18, 1988, and lived together until December 28, 2009.  Two sons, both in college at the time of trial, were born of the over twenty-year marriage.  In 1982, the husband graduated from dental school and joined his father’s practice, becoming an equal partner pursuant to a “buy-in” agreement prior to the marriage.  The wife was a homemaker and primary caretaker of the children, while the husband was the sole wage earner.  Although she earned a bachelor’s degree and was briefly employed outside the home, the wife was laid off in early 1989 and has not been otherwise employed since before her first son was born.  During the marriage, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 26, 2014 at 4:16 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,