Source: https://www.lynchowens.com/blog/2017/june/when-can-a-judge-extend-alimony-beyond-federal-r/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:08:50+00:00

Document:
Can a Judge Extend Alimony Past Federal Retirement Age?
Massachusetts divorce attorney Jason V. Owens reviews deviations from the federal retirement age “cap” under the Alimony Reform Act.
This blog has paid a great deal of attention to the unequal treatment received by Massachusetts alimony payors who were divorced before 2012 versus those divorced after 2012 under the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act (ARA). Today, we will cover a (seemingly) simpler topic: for post-2012 divorces, when can a judge deviate from the presumption under the ARA that alimony will terminate when an alimony payor reaches federal retirement age, as provided in G. L. c. 208, § 49(f).
As is often the case with statutory analysis, the answer is a bit more complicated than first meets the eye.
Does G. L. c. 208, § 53 Apply to the ARA’s Retirement Provision? Maybe.
(1) When the court enters an initial alimony judgment, the court may set a different alimony termination date for good cause shown; provided, however, that in granting deviation, the court shall enter written findings of the reasons for deviation.
(ii) reasons for the extension that are supported by clear and convincing evidence.
So what constitutes good cause shown? This is where it gets more complicated.
(9) upon written findings, any other factor that the court deems relevant and material.
Except for reimbursement alimony or circumstances warranting deviation for other forms of alimony, the amount of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or 30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued.
[T]o the extent that G. L. c. 208, § 49(f) (creating a presumption that alimony shall terminate when the payor reaches full retirement age [as the husband has]) has application in this case, the judge here implicitly found that there was good cause to deviate from that presumption, see G. L. c. 208, § 49(f)(1), andher factual findings show that she considered the relevant statutory grounds for deviation, including the wife’s age, poor health, and lack of employment opportunity. See G. L. c. 208, § 53(e). We conclude that the judge acted well within her discretion inawarding alimony to the wife even though the husband had already reached full retirement age, and we see no error in the amount of alimony awarded for the period until the husband’s retirement.
Zaleski makes clear that a judge deviating from the retirement cap under under § 49(f) must enter written findings of fact. What the decision seems to avoid, however, is a definitive answer to whether deviating from the retirement cap requires a judge to consider each and every factor listed in § 53(e). The importance of Zaleski’s failure to explicitly link deviations under § 49(f) with the mandatory factors listed in § 53(e) should not be exaggerated, however. All we know is that the SJC’s framework in Zaleski at least leaves open the possibility that a judge could deviate from the retirement limits of § 49 (f) without considering all of the factors listed in § 53(e).
[Section] 49(f) provides by default that a general term alimony order terminates “upon the payor attaining the full retirement age.” In turn, “[f]ull retirement age” is generally defined to mean “the payor’s normal retirement age to be eligible to receive full retirement benefits under the United States Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program” (Social Security). G. L. c. 208, § 48. Deviation from the § 49(f) default duration at the time of the issuance of the general term alimony order requires a showing of good cause and specific written findings by the judge. G. L. c. 208, § 49(f)(1). A later extension of the duration of an existing alimony order requires good cause shown and written findings of a material change in circumstances and of reasons for the extension supported by clear and convincing evidence. G. L. c. 208, § 49(f)(2).
Although the judge did not enter written findings of her reasons for deviating — as required by G. L. c. 208, §§ 49(f)(1) and 53(e) — the parties have waived any argument that this was error. See Correia v. Correia, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 811, 816 (2007) (issues not raised below are generally deemed waived on appeal).
Judges Must Enter Written Findings for Deviations Under the ARA – Hassey, Green and Herbert-Sullivan make clear that a judge who seeks to deviate from the presumptive alimony limits set forth in the ARA must enter written findings of fact explaining the “good cause shown” for the deviation.
The Factors Set Forth in § 53(e) Are Relevant to Any Deviations Under the ARA. Green strongly suggests that a judge, in making his or her findings in support of a deviation from the retirement limits of the ARA under § 49(f), should consider the eight factors set out in § 53(e), which include the age, medical health and financial state of the parties.
But the § 53(e) Factors May Not Be Required for Retirement Deviations. The SJC’s decision in Zaleski falls just short of absolutely requiring a consideration of the § 53(e) factors when deviating from the retirement cap under § 49(f), but it is not clear how much attorneys and judges should read into this omission.
Deviation Findings Always Stronger if § 53(e) Factors Considered. Moreover, it should be noted that even if a consideration of the § 53(e) factors is required for retirement deviations under § 49(f), attorneys must remember that § 53(e)(9) stillincludes a “catch-all” provision that suggests that a judge could justify a deviation from the retirement cap based on “any other factor that the court deems relevant and material”.
In the end, the takeaway from all of these cases is this: a judge who makes careful findings supporting his or her deviation from the retirement age limit under § 49(f) of the ARA is likely to survive an appeal. As part of those findings, however, a wise judge will show that he or she considered all of the factors set forth in § 53(e). It goes without saying that it is incumbent on attorneys who are seeking a deviation under the ARA to provide judges with the basic evidence the judge needs to enter these findings.

References: V. 
 § 49
 § 53
 § 49
 § 49
 § 53
 § 49
 § 53
 § 49
 § 53
 § 49
 § 53
 § 48
 § 49
 § 49
 § 49
 v. 
 § 53
 § 49
 § 53
 § 53
 § 53
 § 49
 § 53
 § 53
 § 49
 § 53
 § 49
 § 53