Zaleski v. Zaleski, 469 Mass. 230 (2014)
This case involved an action for divorce tried by Atwood & Cherny (David E. Cherny, Esq. and Catharine V. Blake, Esq.) just after the effective date of the Alimony Reform Statute. The lower court ordered the husband to pay rehabilitative alimony to the wife rather than general term alimony after a marriage of more than 16 years. The lower court also excluded the husband’s bonus from the calculation of alimony and required the wife to maintain a life insurance policy as security for her obligations under the judgment. The wife appealed the award of rehabilitative alimony; the exclusion of the husband’s bonus in the calculation of alimony; and the provision that she obtain life insurance. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took the case up on Direct Appellate Review sua sponte. Atwood & Cherny continued to represent the husband on appeal. The SJC held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the lower court to award rehabilitative alimony; that it was error not to use the husband’s entire income in the calculation of alimony; and that there was no basis for the judge’s findings to warrant the wife maintaining life insurance. This case is mostly cited for two propositions: (1) that a judge has discretion in deciding whether to award rehabilitative alimony rather than general term alimony so long as she has given appropriate consideration to the factors identified in G.L. c. 208, § 53(a); and (2) that if a party’s employability in the near future is a realistic prospect, rehabilitative alimony might, with other considerations, be appropriate. It also contains a review and analysis of the type of evidence a trial court may review to establish employability.
This case involved an action for divorce tried by Atwood & Cherny (David E. Cherny, Esq. and Catharine V. Blake, Esq.) just after the effective date of the Alimony Reform Statute. The lower court ordered the husband to pay rehabilitative alimony to the wife rather than general term alimony after a marriage of more than 16 years. The lower court also excluded the husband’s bonus from the calculation of alimony and required the wife to maintain a life insurance policy as security for her obligations under the judgment. The wife appealed the award of rehabilitative alimony; the exclusion of the husband’s bonus in the calculation of alimony; and the provision that she obtain life insurance. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took the case up on Direct Appellate Review sua sponte. Atwood & Cherny continued to represent the husband on appeal. The SJC held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the lower court to award rehabilitative alimony; that it was error not to use the husband’s entire income in the calculation of alimony; and that there was no basis for the judge’s findings to warrant the wife maintaining life insurance. This case is mostly cited for two propositions: (1) that a judge has discretion in deciding whether to award rehabilitative alimony rather than general term alimony so long as she has given appropriate consideration to the factors identified in G.L. c. 208, § 53(a); and (2) that if a party’s employability in the near future is a realistic prospect, rehabilitative alimony might, with other considerations, be appropriate. It also contains a review and analysis of the type of evidence a trial court may review to establish employability.