Recent Articles

Ludwig v Ludwig

by Matthew Solomon, Esq. Ludwig v Ludwig, 15-P-1177 (slip opinion) (2017). Massachusetts... 

New Standing Order about Parent Education Course from the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court

by Matthew Solomon, Esq. On April 11, 2016, Chief Justice Angela M. Ordoñez signed... 

Reforming (alimony) reform – A Chance to Reconsider Applying Effective Dates Retroactively in the event of Retirement and Cohabitation

by Matthew Solomon, Esq. In 2011, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Alimony... 

MOLST: Honoring Patient’s Life-Sustaining Treatment Preferences

by Matthew Solomon, Esq. In 2012, Massachusetts introduced a new medical form called... 

Are Self-Modifying Alimony Provisions Enforceable?

by Matthew Solomon, Esq. A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case, Hassey v Hassey,... 

Read More Posts From This Category


Words Matter: Pfannenstiehl overruled by Supreme Judicial Court

by Matthew Solomon, Esq. In one of the most awaited and watched divorce cases of... 

Why Write A Will – Basic Estate Plan

by Laura E. Days, Esq. “In her first effort at being very, very good, she decided... 

Mediator as Truthsayer

by Laurie Israel Mediation is not one monolithic technique. Mediators and mediation... 

Where Does Marital Mediation Fit In?

by Laurie Israel During the past quarter century, academics and others writing about... 

Can You Start A Divorce Action On Facebook?

by Matthew Solomon, Esq. In a March of 2015 ruling that is as groundbreaking as it... 

Read More Posts From This Category

New Cases

Hassey v. Hassey, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 518 (2014)

This was a divorce after an eleven year marriage. Upon divorce, the probate judge ordered husband to pay monthly alimony that was approximately forty-one percent of the difference in incomes, which exceeded the thirty to thirty-five percent range set forth in the Alimony Reform Act. The Appeals Court stated that although such a deviation is “reasonable... [Read more of this review]

Rodman v Rodman, SJC-11726 (Jan. 30, 2015)

2008 divorce with merged alimony judgment predated the Alimony Reform Act. Ex-husband sought to terminate alimony as he had reached full retirement age as defined by M.G.L. ch. 208, section 48. Ex-husband argued that modification based on full retirement allowable in merged divorce judgment because a merged judgment is “prospective” in effect. Court... [Read more of this review]

Doktor v Doktor, SJC-11727 (Jan. 30, 2015)

Ex-husband reached retirement age after 1992 divorce with merged alimony provision in separation agreement.   He sought to eliminate alimony under G.L.G. ch. 208, section 49(f). Court held that presumptive termination of alimony at full retirement age in the Alimony Reform Act is was meant to be prospective and does not apply to cases that were concluded... [Read more of this review]

Chin v Merriot, SJC-11715 (Jan. 30, 2015)

Ex-husband already had reached the age of retirement by 2011 divorce. He sought to terminate his alimony obligation under M.G.L. ch. 208, section 49(f). The alimony provision was merged into the judgment.   In addition, he raised the cohabitation provision under M.G.L. ch. 208, section 49(d) as a reason for termination of alimony. Court held that... [Read more of this review]

Smith v. McDonald — New SJC case about moving out-of-state with child

The Massachusetts SJC again weighed in on the removal issue  in Smith v. McDonald, SJC -10670, December 14, 2010.  In this case, a unmarried mother moved to Batavia, New York, 400 miles away from the father, with their 6 month old child.  Since the child’s birth, the father had pursued a relationship with the child.  He visited him, and... [Read more of this review]

Read More Posts From This Category