Rodman v. Rodman, 570 Mass. 539 (2015)
In a case of first impression, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that G.L. c. 208, § 49(f) (a section of the Alimony Reform Statute that alimony “shall terminate upon the payor attaining the full retirement age”) does not apply retroactively to alimony orders in divorce judgments that entered before March 1, 2012. The Rodmans were divorced in April 2008 after a 39 year marriage. Their merged separation agreement provided for payment of alimony until the death of either party or the wife’s remarriage. The husband, represented by Atwood & Cherny (David E. Cherny, Esq. and Thomas D. Ritter, Esq.) filed a complaint for modification under the Alimony Reform Statute when he reached 66 years old. The trial court, uncertain of the applicability of the Alimony Reform Statute to judgments that entered before March 1, 2012, submitted this issue to the Appeals Court on a reservation and report. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.
In a case of first impression, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that G.L. c. 208, § 49(f) (a section of the Alimony Reform Statute that alimony “shall terminate upon the payor attaining the full retirement age”) does not apply retroactively to alimony orders in divorce judgments that entered before March 1, 2012. The Rodmans were divorced in April 2008 after a 39 year marriage. Their merged separation agreement provided for payment of alimony until the death of either party or the wife’s remarriage. The husband, represented by Atwood & Cherny (David E. Cherny, Esq. and Thomas D. Ritter, Esq.) filed a complaint for modification under the Alimony Reform Statute when he reached 66 years old. The trial court, uncertain of the applicability of the Alimony Reform Statute to judgments that entered before March 1, 2012, submitted this issue to the Appeals Court on a reservation and report. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.