Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
This AI-generated podcast reviews a blog by attorney Jason V. Owens of Lynch & Owens entitled, Exploring the Interaction Between Openshaw and Cavanagh Decisions in Massachusetts Alimony Cases.
Creators and Guests
What is Lynch & Owens Podcast - A Massachusetts Divorce & Family Law Podcast?
We are a podcast focused on Massachusetts divorce and family law issues, brought to you by the attorneys of Lynch & Owens, PC.
Our podcasts are generated by Google NotebookLM, an artificial intelligence platform, based on blogs created by the attorneys of Lynch & Owens, P.C. of Hingham, Massachusetts. Note that the opinions offered in the show are generated by artificial intelligence and may differ from the source material. Neither our blogs nor our podcasts are legal advice.
Follow our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or through our RSS feed.
Alright. So if you're like a lot of folks in Massachusetts, and you're trying to figure out, like, what on earth is going on with alimony these days, well, you've come to the right place.
Host 2:Yeah. Things have gotten pretty complicated, especially with some of these recent court decisions.
Host 1:Yeah. For sure. So we're diving deep today on how two big rulings from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the SJC, Openshaw v. Openshaw just last year, and then Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh back in 2022.
Host 1:How these are kinda shaking things up.
Host 2:Yeah. And we should probably start, you know, just for context for folks who might not be, you know, totally up to speed on this stuff, by talking about the Alimony Reform Act or the ARA, as it's usually called.
Host 1:Right. So the ARA, which, you know, a lot of folks are probably familiar with at this point, that went into effect back in 2011. And the idea you know, the the big goal was to try and some more, like, predictability
Host 2:Yeah.
Host 1:And structure to alimony.
Host 2:Yeah. Trying to get away from those, like, lifetime alimony situations that, you know, people were seeing and everyone had heard the horror stories. Exactly. And so, you know, the ARA came in and said, okay. We're gonna we're gonna try to put some limits on this.
Host 2:And, you know, one of the key things they did was introduce this idea of, you know, basing alimony on the recipient's need or, you know, as a kind of a fallback using a percentage of the difference in incomes, generally around 30 to 35%.
Host 1:Right. Right. And that percentage, you know, it was tied to the gross incomes of the spouses. Right. And, you one thing that's really important to remember here is that back then alimony payments were tax deductible at the federal level.
Host 1:So, you know, that tax benefit for the person paying alimony really made that 35% guideline almost like a tab, You know, kind of a default in a lot
Host 2:of cases. Yeah. It really did. It created kind of a financial balance. Know, the paying spouse would get that tax break and the receiving spouse would, you know, pay taxes often at a lower rate.
Host 1:Right. Right. So everybody was, you know, relatively happy with how that shaking out.
Host 2:Yeah. It wasn't perfect, obviously. Yeah. You know? But it did provide some degree of, like, you know, you could kind of predict, you know, where things were gonna land.
Host 1:Right. Exactly. So, you know, to really dig into this, we're gonna be focusing on some great analysis from Jason V. Owens.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. He knows his stuff.
Host 1:Yeah. He's over the law firm, Lynch and Owens. And he's got a blog post that really breaks down these cases and what they mean.
Host 2:Yeah. It's a really helpful resource.
Host 1:Really is. And before we go any further though, you know, the standard disclaimer, we're not giving legal advice here, folks.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. For sure. This is all just, you know, for informational purposes only.
Host 1:Exactly. So if you're dealing with alimony issues or you're thinking about divorce
Host 2:Yeah.
Host 1:You know, do not rely on us.
Host 2:Talk to a lawyer.
Host 1:Yes. Please talk to a qualified attorney who can, you know, give you advice that's tailored to your specific situation.
Host 2:Exactly. Every divorce is different, and, you know, you really need someone who can look at your, you know, your specific circumstances and and guide you through this stuff.
Host 1:Absolutely. So with that out of the way, let's get into it. So the first major shift that that Jason Owens talked about in his blog post is, you know, the loss of that alimony tax deduction. Yeah. How did that change things?
Host 1:Well, was huge. I mean, like you said before, that deductibility was a big part of how the whole system kinda worked. And then in 2017, the federal government passes the the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the DCJA.
Host 2:Right. Right.
Host 1:And it takes effect in 2019 and boom. No more federal tax deduction for alimony, for new divorce cases in Massachusetts, and eventually followed suit and conformed to the federal law. So it was a pretty big deal.
Host 2:Yeah. Like you said, it really changed the calculus. I mean, all of a sudden, the paying spouses looking at those alimony payments and
Host 1:Yeah.
Host 2:Without getting that tax break anymore to kinda soften the blow.
Host 1:Right. Yeah. It's like that win win scenario that Jason Owens talks about in his post that kinda goes out the window.
Host 2:Yeah. For sure. The incentive to agree to alimony that, you know, was there before, it's it's not as strong anymore.
Host 1:So what did attorneys just, like, throw up their hands and say, I don't know what to do?
Host 2:No. They're resourceful. You know? So they started trying to figure out ways to adapt. I mean, one thing that some attorneys started doing was trying to, like, reverse engineer.
Host 2:The old ARA formula, you know, they were like, okay. If we know that the old 35% worked when there was a tax deduction, how do we adjust that to get to a similar net amount after taxes? You know? So they were trying to figure out what the equivalent amount would be in this new world without the deduction.
Host 1:Interesting. So they're, like, trying to maintain a similar financial outcome for both parties even without that tax break?
Host 2:Exactly. Yeah. It wasn't a perfect solution, but it was a way to try to, like, you know, keep things somewhat consistent.
Host 1:Right. Okay. So that's kind of the first layer of this whole thing. And then you've got Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh coming along in 2022.
Host 1:And Yeah. You know, as Jason Owens points out in his post, this was a really key development, but it it dealt with something a little bit different, the whole interplay between alimony and child support.
Host 2:Right. Yeah. So the Kavanaugh decision, you know, it really focused on how Massachusetts law, specifically, chapter two zero eight, section 53 c of the general laws, how that law deals with how income is factored in when you're calculating both alimony and child support. You know? Because a lot of times, you've got both of those things going on in a divorce.
Host 1:Right. Yeah. And how are those supposed to work together?
Host 2:Exactly. And before Kavanaugh, the common practice was pretty straightforward. You know, you'd calculate child support first, usually based on the first four hundred thousand dollars of the couple's combined income. And then whatever was left over, you'd use that to figure out alimony.
Host 1:Okay. So, like, child support was the priority?
Host 2:Pretty much. Yeah. It was the first thing you'd sort out.
Host 1:Got it. And Kavanaugh kinda flipped that on its head.
Host 2:Well, in a way, yeah, what Kavanaugh said was, look. Sometimes it might make more sense to calculate alimony before child support.
Host 1:Okay. So instead of child support first, it's like alimony first.
Host 2:Right. Exactly. And that sounds like a small change, but it can actually have a really big impact on the final numbers. Yeah. Well, think about it.
Host 2:When you calculate alimony first, you're taking that amount right off the top of the paying spouse's income. Right? So the amount of money they have left to pay child support is less. But the initial alimony amount is based on the full difference in incomes before any payments are made. You see what I mean?
Host 1:Yes. It's like a domino effect.
Host 2:Right. And it usually ends up meaning that the total amount of support the paying spouse has to pay is higher when you do it that way.
Host 1:Okay. So it sounds like Kavanaugh basically said, hey, judges. You can't just automatically calculate child support first. Mhmm. You need to look at both scenarios, alimony first and then child support and then child support first and then alimony.
Host 2:Exactly. And not only do you have to look at both scenarios, but you also have to, like, actually think about it. You know? You have to consider the tax consequences of each approach and decide which one is the most fair and equitable in that particular case. You know, which one really aligns with the goals of the alimony reform act and the child support guidelines.
Host 1:Right. Right. So it's like a whole extra layer of analysis.
Host 2:Yeah. For sure, judges can't just pick one way or the other without really thinking it through and justifying their choice.
Host 1:So that sounds pretty clear cut, but it seems like there's been some pushback on Kavanaugh or at least some confusion about how to apply it in practice.
Host 2:Yeah. There has been. You know? And Jason Owens talks about this in his blog post. You know, the intention behind Kavanaugh was good.
Host 2:It was all about making things more fair. But the problem is the decision didn't really give any, like, specific guidance on when you should prioritize alimony over child support or vice versa.
Host 1:So it's like, consider both, but we're not gonna tell you when to use which one.
Host 2:Right. And that's led to a lot of uncertainty, especially at the temporary order stage, you know, early on in a divorce case.
Host 1:Right. And and I guess that makes sense because, you know, the reality is most divorce cases, they actually settle before they ever go to trial.
Host 2:Oh, The vast majority.
Host 1:So those temporary orders that judges issue early on, they can really have a big impact on the final agreement.
Host 2:Absolutely. They set the stage, you know. And so a lot of judges have just stuck with the old familiar way of doing things, child support first.
Host 1:Because it's easier.
Host 2:Well, yeah. And because Kavanaugh didn't really force them to do anything different at that stage.
Host 1:Okay. So it sounds like the Kavanaugh analysis is more likely to come into play at trial when judges have to really explain their reasoning and show their work.
Host 2:Right. Exactly. When they have to make those detailed findings justify their decisions.
Host 1:Okay. So we've got the loss of the tax deduction and then we've got Kavanaugh kind of shaking up the child support alimony interaction. But then Jason Owens brings up this really interesting point about how all of this has really brought the idea of need back to the forefront.
Host 2:Yeah. That's a key point. You know, we were talking before about how the ARA kind of established this limit on alimony, you know, either based on the recipient's need or that 35% of the income difference.
Host 1:Right.
Host 2:And Jason Owens makes the point that in the early years after the ARA, you know, when alimony was still tax deductible, that percentage calculation, that 35%, it kinda became the main focus.
Host 1:Like the magic number.
Host 2:Yeah. Exactly. And need, it sort of took a back seat, and, you it wasn't always given as much attention.
Host 1:Interesting. But now with the TCJA taking away the tax deduction and then Kavanaugh coming along and introducing this whole dual calculation approach, it seems like need is suddenly a lot more important.
Host 2:It really is. Yeah. I mean, think about it from a judge's perspective. You know, if they wanna justify giving a lower overall support amount by calculating child support first, they can often point to need and say, look, the recipient doesn't actually need the higher amount that they would get if we did alimony alimony first.
Host 1:Right. So need becomes this, like, crucial piece of the puzzle.
Host 2:Exactly. Yeah. It gives judges a way to kinda balance things out.
Host 1:Okay. And and how do you actually define need in this context?
Host 2:Well, that's a good question. And, you know, before the Alimony Reform Act came along, there was a case, Pierce v Pierce, back in 02/2009, that kinda set the standard. And it basically said that need should be looked at in relation to maintaining the marital lifestyle.
Host 1:So, like, what was the couple's standard of living during the marriage?
Host 2:Right. How were they living? How much were they spending? What were they used to?
Host 1:So you're using that as a benchmark for what the recipient might need after the divorce?
Host 2:Exactly. It's about trying to ensure that the receiving spouse can maintain reasonably comparable lifestyle to what they had during the marriage.
Host 1:Okay. So it's not just about, like, basic survival. It's about trying to preserve a certain level of comfort and financial stability.
Host 2:Right. And, you know, that usually involves looking at things like housing costs, food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, all those sorts of things.
Host 1:So it's a pretty holistic view.
Host 2:It is. Yeah. It's not just about making sure the lights stay on.
Host 1:So that was the pre ARA understanding of need. But then along comes OpenShaw v OpenShaw in 2024. And as Jason Owens puts it, this decision really expanded how we think about need.
Host 2:Yeah. This was a big one. What OpenShaw said was that a recipient's ability to save money after the divorce, you know, to actually build up some savings that can now be considered part of their need.
Host 1:Woah. Wait a minute. So it's not just about maintaining your current lifestyle. It's also about being able to save for the future.
Host 2:Exactly. Yeah. And that's a pretty big shift from the old way of thinking. You know, before it was really all about covering those day to day expenses, maintaining that lifestyle.
Host 1:Right.
Host 2:Openshaw said, no saving for the future. That can be a legitimate need too, but there's a catch.
Host 1:There's always a catch.
Host 2:Right. The recipient has to be able to show that saving money was a regular part of their life during the marriage. You know, it has to have been an established pattern.
Host 1:So if you and your spouse were, like, diligently putting money into savings every month Yeah. You know, or contributing to retirement accounts, that kind of thing.
Host 2:Exactly. Yeah. Then Openshaw says that the court can consider that when they're figuring out alimony.
Host 1:Wow. That's really interesting. So it's not just about your spending habits anymore. It's also about your saving habits.
Host 2:Right. And you know what's really interesting about this is that Jason Owens points out how this could really change the game when it comes to the Kavanaugh analysis?
Host 1:How so?
Host 2:Well, remember how we talked about how payers sometimes try to argue that the recipient doesn't need the higher amount of support they would get if you calculated alimony first?
Host 1:Right. Well, now with Openshaw, if the recipient can show that they were regularly saving during the marriage, that argument gets a lot harder to make.
Host 2:Right. Because now saving is part of need.
Host 1:Exactly. So it's like OpenShaw is giving recipients another tool to use when they're arguing for a higher alimony award.
Host 2:And Jason Owens even suggests that OpenShaw could lead to more alimony orders that are closer to that original thirty, thirty five percent guideline even without the tax deduction because it's basically raising the bar for what counts as need.
Host 1:Yeah. That's a really interesting point. You know, if saving is part of need, then that means the recipient's overall financial requirements are gonna be higher.
Host 2:Right.
Host 1:And that could justify a bigger alimony payment.
Host 2:Okay. So I've got the loss of the tax break. We've got Kavanaugh mixing things up with the alimony and child support calculations. And now we've got OpenShaw broadening the definition of need. And Jason Owens is basically saying that all of this together could lead to a situation where support orders actually end up exceeding 50% of a payer's after tax income.
Host 2:Yeah. And that's a pretty big deal. Mean, wasn't really something that was happening before.
Host 1:Right. It was always kind of assumed that you wouldn't go above that 50% mark.
Host 2:Yeah. And Jason Owens talks about how you have to look at this in the context of the bigger picture. What was going on back in 2011 when the ARA was passed.
Host 1:Right. What were the concerns that were driving that reform?
Host 2:Well, one of the big ones was that child support obligations were going up and up, you know, and people were worried about the impact that was having on families.
Host 1:And the other big concern was lifetime alimony.
Host 2:Right? Exactly. Yeah. People felt like the system was just too unpredictable and that sometimes people were getting stuck paying alimony forever.
Host 1:So the ARA was trying to address those concerns.
Host 2:Right. And Jason Owen suggests that maybe those concerns aren't as strong now as they were back then. You know? Maybe there's less resistance to the idea of higher alimony awards.
Host 1:Interesting. So it's like the pendulum might be swinging back a bit.
Host 2:Yeah. Yeah. Maybe so. And I think the point that Jason Owens is making is that you've got all these different forces kind of pushing in the same direction. You know?
Host 2:You've got the TCJA taking away that tax benefit that used to help keep alimony amounts lower. Then you've got Kavanaugh creating this potential for higher support awards through the alimony first calculation. And now you've got OpenShaw giving recipients a stronger argument for why they need more money.
Host 1:Right. It's like all these things are kind of feeding into each other.
Host 2:Exactly. And Jason Owens actually gives this really helpful example in his blog post. He talks about a hypothetical scenario where you've got a payer who's making a hundred and $25,000 a year and a recipient who's making $70,000 a year. And he shows how if you calculate alimony first and then add in child support, the recipient could actually end up with more after tax income than the payer.
Host 1:Woah. That's a huge difference.
Host 2:It is. Yeah. And it really illustrates how these changes can have a really significant impact on the financial balance between the parties.
Host 1:Right. And I'm guessing that in that kind of situation, the payer's attorney would be fighting tooth and nail to make sure child support was calculated first.
Host 2:Oh, absolutely. They'd be trying to avoid that outcome at all costs.
Host 1:Right. Because nobody wants to end up paying more than their ex.
Host 2:Yeah. And, you know, the interesting thing is that while increasing the payer's income would obviously change the math a bit, you know, if they were making a lot more than a hundred and 25,000, Kavanaugh still doesn't really give us a clear rule for how to deal with these situations, especially at higher income levels where you hit that $400,000 cap for child support.
Host 1:Right. So there's still a lot of ambiguity.
Host 2:Yeah. A lot of gray areas.
Host 1:So where does all of this leave us, you know, as we look ahead to the rest of 2025? What's the takeaway for people listening?
Host 2:Well, I think the main thing is that alimony in Massachusetts, it's gotten a lot more complicated.
Host 1:That's for sure.
Host 2:Jason Owens really lays this out in his blog post. You know, he talks about how there are all these different layers of analysis that have to be done now in alimony cases.
Host 1:Okay. Give me the rundown.
Host 2:Well, first, you've got the net of tax alimony analysis. So that's where you're basically trying to figure out what the after tax equivalent of that old thirty, thirty five percent guideline is.
Host 1:Right. Because we don't have the tax deduction anymore.
Host 2:Exactly. And Jason Owens actually mentions the work of this CPA, Mark Bello, who's done a lot of research on this. And he's found that the after tax range is usually somewhere between 20 and 27 percent.
Host 1:Okay. So a little bit lower than the old guideline.
Host 2:Right. But it still requires you to really understand the ins and outs of the current tax laws.
Host 1:Right. So you need somebody who knows what they're doing.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. For sure. This isn't something you can just eyeball.
Host 1:Okay. So that's the first layer. What's next?
Host 2:Well, then you've got the Kavanaugh analysis, which we talked about before. Remember, you have to do those dual calculations alimony first, then child support, and then the other way around.
Host 1:Right. Right. And that involves using those child support guidelines worksheets.
Host 2:Yeah. Those five page monsters.
Host 1:I've seen them not fun.
Host 2:No, not at all. Jason Owens points out that this can get really complicated, especially if there's a custody dispute going on, because then you might have to submit multiple worksheets with different custody arrangements.
Host 1:Oh, boy. Okay. So that's the Kavanaugh layer.
Host 2:Right. Well, then you've got the open show analysis, which we also talked about before, and that's where you have to present evidence about the couple's saving habits during the marriage.
Host 1:Right. So if you're the recipient, you wanna be able to show that you and your spouse were regularly saving money.
Host 2:Exactly. And if you're the payer, you're gonna wanna downplay that as much as possible.
Host 1:Makes sense. Okay. So you've got these three layers of analysis, and it sounds like you're probably gonna need expert witnesses to help you make your case.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. Most likely, you'll probably need a forensic accountant or a financial planner or both.
Host 1:So it's definitely not getting any simpler.
Host 2:No. Not at all. And, you know, Jason Owens makes this interesting observation in his blog post. He says that while all this complexity is great for lawyers who specialize in this stuff
Host 1:Right. Job security.
Host 2:Exactly. It's not so clear that it's actually benefiting the people of Massachusetts, you know, the ones who are actually going through divorce.
Host 1:Yeah. That's a really good point. I mean, it's one thing to have a sophisticated legal system, but if it's making things so complicated and expensive Mhmm. That ordinary people can't afford to access justice, then that's a problem.
Host 2:It is. Yeah. Raises some serious questions about whether the system is becoming too burdensome.
Host 1:Right. Right. So to wrap things up, you know, our deep dive into Jason Owens' analysis has really shown us how much things have changed in Massachusetts alimony law. You know, The combination of those federal and state tax law changes and then these two big decisions, Kavanaugh and Openshaw, it's created a much more complex and uncertain legal environment.
Host 2:Absolutely. And, you know, the old rules of thumb, they just don't really apply anymore.
Host 1:Right. And that's why it's so important for anyone who's facing divorce in Massachusetts. You know, whether you're the one who's likely to be paying alimony or receiving it, you need to understand these new realities.
Host 2:Yeah. You really do. You need to know how these changes could affect you.
Host 1:And just to reiterate that, you know, this has been an informational discussion, only we are not giving legal advice.
Host 2:Please don't take this as legal advice.
Host 1:So if you have any questions or concerns about your own situation, talk to a qualified attorney.
Host 2:Yes. Please talk to an expert.
Host 1:They can help you figure out what these legal developments mean for you specifically.
Host 2:Because every case is different and you know you really need that personalized guidance.
Host 1:Absolutely. All right, so one last thought to leave you with and this is inspired by Jason Owens' analysis. You know, as alimony law in Massachusetts gets more and more complex and you see these multilayered analyses and these potentially higher support awards, it really makes you wonder, is this actually leading to fairer outcomes for everyone or is it just creating more obstacles and driving up costs?
Host 2:Yeah. That's the big question, isn't it?
Host 1:Right. And what does fairness even look like in this new world?
Host 2:It's definitely something to think about.
Host 1:It is. Yeah. So as you're processing all of this information, that's the question I want you to keep in mind. Is this really fair or is it just making things harder for everyone involved?
Host 2:Food for thought.
Host 1:Food for thought. Thanks for joining us for
Host 2:this
Host 1:deep dive.