The Massachusetts Alimony Statute Permits the Court to Order Rehabilitative Alimony Based on the Prospect of Future Employment


Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the alimony statute in the case of Zaleski v. Zaleski. In Zaleski, the parties were married in 1994 and had two children before the wife filed for divorce in 2010. During the marriage, the wife was employed outside the home until 2008 when she lost her job. Prior to losing her job, the wife earned approximately $170,000.00 per year. After losing her job, the wife pursued her interest in interior design and took classes in this pursuit prior to the divorce.

After a trial in the Essex Probate and Family Court, the trial judge ordered that rehabilitative rather than general alimony was warranted, finding that the wife could be employed within five years with reasonable effort. At the end of five years, the court ordered that the parties will review each others respective financial circumstances and the need for continued alimony. The wife appealed the decision, claiming that there is no specific event upon which termination was based and the judge needed to identify a specific event in the future in order to order rehabilitative alimony.

In upholding the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony, the Supreme Judicial Court opined "rehabilitative alimony is the appropriate form of alimony if a recipient spouse is expected to become economically self-sufficient by a predicted time. Thus, the [alimony statute] permits a judge to determine that rehabilitative alimony based on expected employment is appropriate where there is sufficient evidence for a judge to find, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the recipient spouse can obtain employment through reasonable efforts, and thereby can gain economic self-sufficiency, in the near future." Therefore, the absence of a specific job available at the time of trial, does not preclude the trial judge from issuing a rehabilitative alimony award.

The Supreme Judicial Court noted that the trial court found that the wife was an educated professional who was employed through most of the marriage and earned significant income and that she had highly transferable skills. Based on these findings, the trial court was appropriate in awarding rehabilitative alimony.

If you have any questions regarding alimony, in Massachusetts or New Hampshire, please do not hesitate to contact an attorney at Hamblett & Kerrigan to discuss. The attorneys at Hamblett & Kerrigan have experience in handling such situations. Let Hamblett & Kerrigan use their experience to your advantage.

Kevin P. Rauseo is a director at Hamblett & Kerrigan P.A. He concentrates his practice in the areas of family and divorce law, Collaborative law, child custody and visitation, child support and alimony, personal injury, insurance defense, slip and fall accidents, automobile and truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, premises liability, dog bites and civil litigation. He is a member of the International Academy of Collaborative Professional and serves on the Professional Development Committee and has previously served on the Public Education Advisory Panel of the Academy. He also is a member of the Collaborative Law Alliance of New Hampshire. AV Preeminent Rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Recipient of the 2014 Nationally Ranked Top 10 Attorney Award from the National Academy of Family Law Attorneys (NAFLA). You can reach Attorney Rauseo atkrauseo@nashualaw.com.

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.