Latest Developments

WHAT'S NEW:

Interested Party in a Massachusetts Guardianship

By Solen G. Moriarty, Esq.

In a recent Supreme Judicial Court decision, Guardianship of B.V.G., the Court clarified the law concerning who is an "interested party" for purposes of intervening in guardianship proceedings, reminding us that the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code favors "limited guardianships in order to maximize the liberty and autonomy of persons subject to guardianship." S.J.C.-11925 (2016).

In B.V.G., the maternal grandfather sought to intervene in the permanent guardianship proceedings pending in the Probate and Family Court on the petition of B.V.G.'s father, who was appointed B.V.G.'s temporary guardian when she was eighteen years old. Guardianship of B.V.G., 87 Mass. App. Ct. 250 (2015). The father, who had full legal and physical custody, precluded contact between B.V.G., a young woman with intellectual disabilities, and her maternal relatives. Id. The maternal grandfather argued and presented facts in the trial and appeals court that B.V.G. reached out to him on several occasions expressing a desire to have a relationship with him and that their relationship would be in B.V.G.'s best interest. Id.

The father did not suggest any reason that B.V.G. should not be allowed to maintain a relationship with her grandfather. Id. Rather, the father maintained, and the lower courts agreed, that as B.V.G.'s legal guardian, he has the right to determine those with whom she associates. Id. The trial court and the appeals court concluded that the grandfather was not an "interested person" within the meaning of G.L. c. 190B § 5-306(c), denying the grandfather's motion to intervene as a matter of right. The motion judge suggested that the definition of "interested person" applicable to all guardianships "hints of a financial, but not visceral, stake in the underlying proceedings."

The S.J.C. reversed the lower court rulings, finding that an "interested person" as defined by G.L. c. 190B §1-201, within the meaning of G.L. c. 190B § 5-306(c), is a person "interested in the welfare of the incapacitated person." B.V.G.." S.J.C.-11925 (2016). The S.J.C. explained that the "interest" required to qualify as an "interested person" might be viewed both as a potential intervener's own interests in protecting the incapacitated person's estate and as an interest in the well-being of the incapacitated person. Id.

As a guardianship proceeding is designed to effectuate the best interests of the incapacitated person, one may show that a continued relationship with an incapacitated individual, against the guardian's wishes, is possible if it would be in the incapacitated person's best interest. The court reasons that an "interested person" eligible to intervene in such matters must include those individuals who demonstrate a sufficient interest in the incapacitated individual's welfare. Id.

The S.J.C. moreover references the comments in the Uniform Probate Code, which indicate a "legislative preference for encouraging an incapacitated person and other "interested person[s]" to advocate to the court to safeguard the liberty interests of the incapacitated person." Id.

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY LAW UPDATE:

Stock Option Income and Child Support

By Solen G. Moriarty, Esq.

The Appeals Court, in Hoegen v. Hoegen, 43 N.E.3d718 (2016), recently held that income received from employer-issued vested restricted stock units (RSU) is considered gross annual income subject to inclusion when calculating child support. In this case, the Mother appealed from a Trial Court decision holding that a separation agreement in which the Mother acknowledges that Father participates in a stock plan through his employment and waives all rights, title and interest in those accounts, precludes the inclusion of income derived from the RSUs for child support purposes. The parties were divorced by a judgment of divorce nisi, incorporating by reference a separation agreement, which survived as an independent contract, except as to matters relating to the children.

Child support is controlled by G.L. c. 208 § 28 and the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines. Section I-A of the Guidelines defines income as "gross income from whatever source" and lists twenty-seven sources of income. The Appeals Court in Hoegen notes that while income derived from stock or RSUs is not specifically included in this list, the guidelines state that "any other form of income or compensation not specifically itemized" may be included. Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines I-A(28).

The Appeals Court asserts that the Courts have held that income derived from stock options is considered "gross annual employment income" for the purpose of calculating child support orders. Wooters v. Wooters, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 839, 843, 91 N.E.2nd 234 (2009). The Wooters Court rationalized the expectation that income realized from the exercise of stock options should be treated as gross employment income, stating "it is commonly defined as part of one's compensation package, and it is listed on W-2 forms and is taxable along with the other income." The Appeals Court in the Hoegen case maintained this position finding that the Father received, as part of the compensation package with his employer, a certain number of RSUs and that Father regularly earned income from his employer-issued RSUs. Therefore, as a result, RSU income should have been included as gross income along with his base salary and bonus compensation in calculating his child support obligation.

The Father in this case contends that the Mother waived all interest in his RSU income at the time of their original divorce agreement. The Court disagrees, stating that Mother's waiver in the RSU income cannot operate to waive her children's rights to appropriate child support pursuant to the guidelines. The Hoegen Court asserts the precedent that "parents may not bargain away the rights of their children to support from either one of them." Okoli v. Okoli, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 371, 377 (2012), quoting from Knox v. Remick, 371 Mass. 433, 437, 358 N.E.2d432 (1976). Therefore, even if Mother did waive her right to the interest in the RSUs, that waiver cannot operate to waive her children's right to child support from that income.

WHAT'S NEW: Comparable Health Insurance: The True Test

By Solen G. Moriarty, Esq.

The parties in Shine v. Shine (No. 15-P-288) (Appeals Court- Unpublished, February 11, 2016) were divorced pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into a judgment requiring the husband to continue to provide health insurance that covered the wife, subject to two conditions. First, if there was an additional cost to cover the wife, the wife was required to pay the additional fee. Secondly, if the wife has the opportunity through her current or future employer to obtain comparable health insurance, she shall do so and the husband shall no longer be obligated to provide her with health insurance.

The wife in Shine obtained new employment and declined the option of obtaining health insurance through her new employer. The husband filed a contempt action, claiming that by refusing the employer-offered health insurance, the wife failed to act in accordance with their separation agreement. The lower court agreed with the husband's argument and ordered the wife to obtain health insurance for herself through her new employer. The wife appealed.

Health Insurance PolicyThe appeals court reversed the lower court's ruling, stating that "the judge did not actually find that the health insurance coverage available through the wife's employment provided "comparable" coverage and benefits to those provided through the husband's plan." The appeals court went on to say that "although it may well be true that one of the many plans available to the wife through her employment is 'comparable' to the plan provided under the husband's insurance, the evidence to substantiate that claim is absent." Therefore, in Shine v. Shine, the appeals court postulates that under the terms of such an agreement, it is not enough to argue that there is a potential plan available to your former spouse, but rather, evidence must be submitted so that a comparable analysis can be done to determine whether or not a former spouse is required to obtain replacement health insurance through their employer.

WHAT'S NEW: CHILD SUPPORT UPDATE

MA Court Cannot Modify Out-Of-State Child Support Order

On February 23, 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court could not modify a California child support order, even when the parents stipulated to the modification. In Cohen v. Cohen, after securing a support order in California, the mother and child continued to reside in California while the father moved to Massachusetts. An enforcement action was brought in Massachusetts and the parties subsequently stipulated that, in addition to the support provisions contained in the California order, the father would also share college expenses and uninsured medical expenses with the mother. The father was eventually found to be in contempt for failure to make such payments and then sought relief from enforcement.

In finding that Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction to modify the out of state order, the Court noted that under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, "[o]nce one court enters a support order, no other court may modify that order for as long as the obligee, obligor, or child for whose benefit the order is entered continues to reside within the jurisdiction of that court unless each party consents in writing to another jurisdiction." Critically, the written consent must be filed in the issuing tribunal and cannot be implied. See G. L. c. 209D, § 6-611 (a) (1)-(2).

Therefore, because the parents failed to file with the California court their written consent to grant a Massachusetts court authority to modify the order issued by the California court, California retained exclusive jurisdiction to modify the judgment. And because lack of jurisdiction can be argued at any time, the father could raise his lack of jurisdiction argument even after his initial stipulation to the terms.*

Source: Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

http://masslawyersweekly.com/2015/02/23/out-of-state-support-order-not-modifiable/

WHAT'S NEW: ALIMONY UPDATE

Settlements Terminating Alimony Based on Retroactive Application of the Alimony Reform Act In Question

In three recent cases, Chin v. Merriot, Rodman v. Rodman and Doktor v. Doktor, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the provisions of the Alimony Reform Act which terminate alimony upon the payee's cohabitating or when the payor reaches full retirement age do not apply retroactively. Prior to the Court's decision, many payors attempted to modify judgments that predated the Act by arguing the retirement and cohabitation provisions applied retroactively. If you were subject to such an attempt and subsequently agreed to terminate alimony, consider contacting an attorney to review your options for reinstatement.*

Court Clarifies When Alimony May Terminate

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ended confusion about when an alimony payor could use the alimony reform laws of 2012 to terminate spousal support. The Court consolidated and heard three cases, Chin v. Merriot, Rodman v. Rodman and Doktor v. Doktor, to address this issue. The Court held that "[a]limony judgments entered prior to the alimony reform act may be modified only under the existing material change of circumstances standard, with the single exception that the new duration limits of the act will be considered a material change of circumstances for the purposes of this standard." See Chin v. Merriot, SJC -11715 at p. 16-17 (Jan. 30, 2015). The Court definitively stated that the fact that the payee is cohabitating or that the payor has reached retirement age does not, one its own, qualify as a material change in circumstances.*

Source: Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

http://masslawyersweekly.com/2015/02/12/sjc-clarifies-debate-on-applicability-of-alimony-reform/

WHAT'S NEW: DIVORCE UPDATE

Divorcing With Dignity

In today's age of social media it is dangerously easy to engage in messy public fighting via Facebook, Twitter and the like. Likewise, today's technology allows you to send an angry email or text message in seconds. It is important to remember that these cyberspace antics can hurt your family law case. Anything you text, email, or post, including status updates, online photographs, and comments, may be used as evidence against you. While your family law case is pending, it is best to avoid social media and to limit electronic communication with your ex. Remember that the nasty text message you just typed could hurt you more than your ex. Taking the proverbial high road will serve you much better when all is said and done.*

Additional reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackie-pilossoph/your-exs-unsolicited-attack_b_6557866.html?utm_hp_ref=divorce-advice

*DISCLAIMER: The following blog posts are provided for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact Attorney Solen G. Moriarty for a consultation today. Please note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.