top of page
maarten-van-den-heuvel-_pc8aMbI9UQ-unsplash.jpg
Search
  • Writer's pictureSummers Family Law

Navigating New Frontiers in Alimony: The Massachusetts Debate on 'Savings' in Spousal Support

As a seasoned family law attorney in Massachusetts, I've witnessed numerous shifts and trends in the realm of divorce and spousal support. Today, I'd like to discuss a groundbreaking case that's currently under the lens of the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Massachusetts — a case that could redefine the understanding of alimony in our state.


The Case That's Changing the Game


The case in question, Openshaw v. Openshaw, delves into uncharted territory: whether 'savings' can be considered a legitimate need in alimony determinations. This emerged when a husband challenged an increase in his weekly alimony payments, part of which was designated for the wife's future savings and charitable donations.


Why This Matters


This discussion is more than a legal squabble; it's about fairness, foresight, and the evolving nature of family law. Traditionally, alimony has been viewed as a means to support the immediate needs of a spouse post-divorce. However, the inclusion of a 'savings' component challenges this view, suggesting that alimony should also consider the future financial security of a spouse.


Diverse Perspectives in the Legal Community


Legal experts are divided on this issue. Some argue that considering future savings aligns with the broader understanding of 'need' in alimony, encompassing a comprehensive view of a spouse's financial security post-divorce. Others contend that alimony should be strictly limited to immediate, tangible needs.


Implications for Divorce Law in Massachusetts


The outcome of this case holds significant implications for how alimony is calculated in Massachusetts. If 'savings' are considered a valid component of alimony, it could lead to higher alimony awards, reflecting a more holistic view of a spouse's financial needs.


My Perspective


As a lawyer deeply rooted in family law, I believe this case underscores the importance of individualizing each divorce case. Whether or not savings should be included in alimony depends on the unique circumstances of each case. It's crucial that we, as legal professionals, adapt our understanding of alimony to the realities of modern life and the diverse needs of individuals post-divorce.


The Road Ahead


As we await the SJC's decision, I encourage my fellow attorneys and those undergoing divorce to consider the broader implications of this case. It's a reminder that the landscape of family law is ever-evolving, and we must remain vigilant and adaptable in our approach.

In closing, the Openshaw case is more than just a legal debate; it's a pivotal moment in Massachusetts family law, potentially setting a new precedent for understanding and calculating alimony.


Disclaimer: The content provided in this blog is for informational and educational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice and readers should not act upon any information provided without seeking professional legal counsel. The author does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of the information provided. This blog is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader.

3 views0 comments

コメント


bottom of page