This AI-generated podcast reviews a blog by attorney Moriah J. King of Lynch & Owens entitled, The Risks and Benefits of Self-Adjusting Alimony Orders in Massachusetts.
Creators & 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.
Ever think about what happens when your soon to be ex is about to get a big promotion right as you're getting divorced?
Host 2:Oh, yeah.
Host 1:Should that impact your alimony payments?
Host 2:Right. Or what if they decide to take some, like, risky new job and their income totally tanks?
Host 1:Yeah. Does that change things?
Host 2:I mean, that's where things get really interesting with these self adjusting alimony orders.
Host 1:Exactly. And that's what we're gonna be talking about today. Diving deep. We're diving deep into a blog post by a Massachusetts divorce lawyer named Mariah j King.
Host 2:Alright. She's
Host 1:from Lynch and Owens.
Host 2:Got it.
Host 1:And, she really gets into the nitty gritty of these self adjusting alimony orders.
Host 2:Yeah. These things are fascinating.
Host 1:They can be so complicated.
Host 2:Yeah. And there's this 2024 case that she talks about in her blog.
Host 1:Oh, really?
Host 2:Yeah. Telvidi versus Telvidi. It really shows you how messy these agreements can get.
Host 1:I mean, I think most people think alimony, you get a certain amount every month, that's it. Right?
Host 2:Yeah. I think so. Right? Like, with child support here in Massachusetts at least, it's usually a fixed amount.
Host 1:Yeah. You know, so you have some sense of, you know, financial stability.
Host 2:Right. You can budget. You can plan.
Host 1:The returning king explains that these self adjusting orders, they go up and down with the payer's income.
Host 2:Yeah. And sometimes even the recipients. They get really wild.
Host 1:So just to be clear, though, she does say that while judges here in Massachusetts can order self adjusting child support
Host 2:Mhmm.
Host 1:They don't really like to do it for alimony after a trial.
Host 2:No. They really don't. I mean, I think they wanna wrap things up cleanly. You know? Yeah.
Host 2:Avoid any future drama.
Host 1:Yeah. Keep it out of the courts.
Host 2:Exactly. Predictability. That's what they're going for.
Host 1:For. Predictability.
Host 2:Yeah.
Host 1:So fixed payments are definitely easier for the courts.
Host 2:For sure.
Host 1:But as attorney King points out, separating couples can actually agree to this self adjusting alimony.
Host 2:Yeah. They can put it right in their separation agreement.
Host 1:And that's when things get really interesting.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. That's where the fun begins.
Host 1:So let's talk about, like, the pros and cons here.
Host 2:Okay.
Host 1:I mean, on the one hand, self adjusting alimony is supposed to be fairer over time. Right?
Host 2:Right. In theory, at least, if the payer's income goes up, the alimony goes up too. Yeah. So the recipient doesn't lose out on their ex's success.
Host 1:And in theory, you don't have to go back to court all the time for modifications.
Host 2:Right. Because those can be expensive and time consuming.
Host 1:And emotionally draining.
Host 2:Oh, totally.
Host 1:But attorney King brings up a really good point.
Host 2:What's that?
Host 1:She mentions this 2017 case.
Host 2:Oh, I know the one Young v Young.
Host 1:Yep. And, basically, the court said that alimony recipients shouldn't automatically benefit from, like, a massive post divorce salary jump.
Host 2:Yeah. If it wasn't part of the original agreement.
Host 1:Right. Because that wasn't part of the lifestyle they had during the marriage.
Host 2:Yeah. The marital standard of living. That's what it's all about.
Host 1:Right. So, like, if someone suddenly becomes a millionaire after the divorce
Host 2:Right.
Host 1:The ex shouldn't necessarily get a cut of that.
Host 2:Unless, of course, they had a self adjusting order.
Host 1:Right. Because then they Yeah.
Host 2:It can get tricky.
Host 1:So it's kind of a double edged sword.
Host 2:For sure.
Host 1:It can protect the recipient if the payer makes more money, but it could also give them what some people might see as an unfair advantage.
Host 2:It all depends on how you define fairness in these situations.
Host 1:Right. Because what is fair in a divorce?
Host 2:That's the million dollar question.
Host 1:And then what happens if the payer's income goes down?
Host 2:Oh, yeah. The flip side.
Host 1:Like, they lose their job
Host 2:Uh-huh.
Host 1:Or their business fails?
Host 2:With a fixed order, the recipient at least knows they're getting something.
Host 1:Yeah.
Host 2:But with a self adjusting order, they could be left with very little.
Host 1:Exactly. And that's something attorney King really emphasizes.
Host 2:Yeah. She's big on making sure both sides understand the risks.
Host 1:And I imagine it could discourage payers from, like, taking a promotion or going for that higher paying job.
Host 2:Oh, absolutely. Why work harder if a big chunk of your income is going straight to your ex? Exactly. It's a tough situation.
Host 1:And then on top of all of that, attorney King points out that the formulas for these self adjusting orders
Host 2:Don't even get me started.
Host 1:They can be so complicated.
Host 2:It's not just about picking a percentage.
Host 1:Right.
Host 2:You have to define what counts as income.
Host 1:Oh, boy.
Host 2:And that can lead to a whole other set of problems.
Host 1:Especially when you start talking about bonuses and stock options and all those other financial things.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. One little ambiguity, one tiny comma out of place
Host 1:And boom.
Host 2:You're back in court.
Host 1:Which brings us back to that Telvidi case.
Host 2:Ah, yes. A classic example of what not to do.
Host 1:Attorney King uses it to show just how important it is to be super specific in these agreements.
Host 2:Especially when you're dealing with complex financial stuff.
Host 1:So tell me what happened in this Telvidi case.
Host 2:Well, it all came down to the definition of earned income from stock options.
Host 1:Stock options?
Host 2:Yes. Specifically, these things called RSUs and PSUs.
Host 1:What?
Host 2:They're basically ways for companies to give their employees stock that becomes available over time
Host 1:Okay.
Host 2:Often based on how well the company does.
Host 1:So I'm guessing the husband in this case, his income changed after the divorce.
Host 2:You got it.
Host 1:And there was a big fight over whether his stock options counted as earned income for the purposes of alimony. Alimony.
Host 2:Bingo.
Host 1:And what did the court decide?
Host 2:Well, the appeals court ended up saying that he did owe over $573,000
Host 1:Wow.
Host 2:In back alimony.
Host 1:All because of how they defined earned income.
Host 2:It just goes to show you every word matters in these agreements.
Host 1:It seems like attorney King is really stressing the importance of having a good lawyer.
Host 2:Oh, absolutely. Someone who really knows the stuff inside and out.
Host 1:Someone who can spot those potential problems before they blow up.
Host 2:Exactly.
Host 1:Alright. So we're starting to see just how complicated these self adjusting alimony orders can be.
Host 2:Yeah. They're definitely not for the faint of heart.
Host 1:But before we get too overwhelmed, let's take a quick break.
Host 2:Sounds good.
Host 1:We'll be right back to explore some potential solutions and see what attorney King has to say about navigating this tricky terrain.
Host 2:I'm ready when you are.
Host 1:We're back and still trying to wrap our heads around self adjusting alimony.
Host 2:It's a lot to take in, isn't it?
Host 1:Yeah. I mean, it seems like there are just so many potential problems.
Host 2:Right. And attorney King, she doesn't really give, like, specific solutions in her blog post, but I think what she does is even more helpful.
Host 1:How so?
Host 2:She highlights the areas where things can go wrong
Host 1:Oh, I see.
Host 2:Which makes you really think about how to approach these agreements in the first place.
Host 1:Yeah. Like, how do you protect both sides from those huge income swings?
Host 2:Right.
Host 1:Someone loses their job
Host 2:Yeah.
Host 1:Or wins the lottery
Host 2:Mhmm.
Host 1:A fixed percentage doesn't really seem fair in those situations.
Host 2:It's a tough one. And I think one thing that attorney King keeps coming back to is the definition of income.
Host 1:Yeah. We saw that in the Telviti case.
Host 2:Right. One little ambiguity, and it cost the guy a fortune.
Host 1:So you're saying be super specific about what counts as income in the agreement?
Host 2:Absolutely no room for interpretation when it comes to bonuses, stock options, all that stuff.
Host 1:Yes. Spell it out clearly.
Host 2:Avoid those nasty court battles later on.
Host 1:And maybe you could build in some safeguards too.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. Like caps and floors on the adjustment.
Host 1:Okay. So, like, if the payer's income suddenly drops, the alimony wouldn't go below a certain amount.
Host 2:Right. That would protect the recipient from being completely cut off.
Host 1:And on the flip side, if the payer suddenly becomes a millionaire Mhmm. Maybe there's a cap on how much the alimony can increase.
Host 2:Exactly. Something that's more in line with the lifestyle they had during the marriage.
Host 1:Yeah. That makes sense.
Host 2:Attorney King talks about this idea of the marital standard of living.
Host 1:Right.
Host 2:It's about recognizing that alimony should be based on what the couple had together, not on some future windfall.
Host 1:So it's like a balancing act.
Host 2:Yeah. You wanna acknowledge that income can change.
Host 1:Mhmm.
Host 2:But you also wanna keep things within the realm of what was established during the marriage.
Host 1:I see.
Host 2:It's a delicate balance.
Host 1:And maybe instead of a fixed percentage, you could have, like, a tiered system.
Host 2:Interesting.
Host 1:So as income changes, the alimony adjusts in smaller steps.
Host 2:Steps. Yeah. That would make the transition smoother.
Host 1:Yeah. Less of a shock to the system.
Host 2:That's a good point.
Host 1:But wouldn't that make these agreements even more complicated?
Host 2:It could. And that's the challenge. Right? Finding that sweet spot between flexibility and clarity.
Host 1:Yeah. Attorney King is really big on clarity.
Host 2:She says ambiguity is the enemy in these agreements.
Host 1:And the more complex the formula Uh-huh. The more room there is for arguments and misunderstandings.
Host 2:Exactly. So maybe it's not just about tweaking the formulas.
Host 1:Maybe we need to rethink the whole approach.
Host 2:What do you mean?
Host 1:Well, attorney King talks about shifting the focus from dividing assets to understanding the long term goals of both parties.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. I like that.
Host 1:So it's less about who gets what
Host 2:Uh-huh.
Host 1:And more about creating a sustainable financial plan for both people.
Host 2:Right. A plan that recognizes that life is unpredictable.
Host 1:People change jobs. Yeah. Markets crash.
Host 2:It happens.
Host 1:You never know what's gonna happen.
Host 2:So what are you suggesting?
Host 1:What if these agreements had, like, a mandatory review period?
Host 2:Okay.
Host 1:Every few years, the parties would come back to the table Mhmm. Reassess their situation, and make adjustments if needed.
Host 2:That's an interesting idea. It would keep the agreement flexible.
Host 1:Yeah. And it might help reduce some of the conflict.
Host 2:Because everyone would know that things can be adjusted down the line.
Host 1:Right. It wouldn't be this, like, one time battle.
Host 2:I like
Host 1:it. And this is where having a good lawyer is so important.
Host 2:Oh, yeah.
Host 1:Someone like attorney King who can help you think through all the possibilities.
Host 2:Someone who's not just there to draft the paperwork.
Host 1:Right. But to really guide you through the process.
Host 2:Because let's face it. Nobody has a crystal ball.
Host 1:Yeah.
Host 2:But a good attorney can at least help you prepare for the unexpected.
Host 1:And make sure you're protected no matter what happens.
Host 2:Exactly. And just to be clear, all of this is specific to Massachusetts. Right. Laws and precedents are different everywhere else.
Host 1:So if you're listening to this
Host 2:Mhmm.
Host 1:And you're not in Massachusetts
Host 2:Right.
Host 1:Definitely talk to a lawyer in your state.
Host 2:Good point.
Host 1:Before you make any decisions.
Host 2:For sure.
Host 1:So is there anything else about attorney King's blog post that really jumped out at you?
Host 2:I think her focus on the Telvita case was really smart.
Host 1:Yeah. It was a great example.
Host 2:It showed how something as simple as the definition of earned income income can have huge consequences.
Host 1:So the takeaway there is
Host 2:Be precise. Every word matters. Every comma, every clause.
Host 1:It can all come back to bite you.
Host 2:If it's not clear.
Host 1:Well said. I think that's a good place to pause for now.
Host 2:Okay.
Host 1:We'll be right back with our final thoughts and a question for our listeners to consider. Alright. So we're back.
Host 2:Back again.
Host 1:Still thinking about self adjusting alimony.
Host 2:It's a lot, isn't it?
Host 1:It really is. And we have attorney Mariah King to thank for all these insights.
Host 2:Yeah. She really knows her stuff.
Host 1:And I think the big takeaway here
Host 2:What's that?
Host 1:Is that if you're even thinking about a self adjusting alimony order Uh-huh. Talk to a lawyer.
Host 2:Oh, yeah. A good one.
Host 1:Someone who specializes in family law in your state.
Host 2:Absolutely. Because the laws are different everywhere.
Host 1:Exactly. Attorney King is in Massachusetts.
Host 2:Right.
Host 1:So everything she's talking about is specific to Massachusetts law.
Host 2:It's a good reminder for everyone listening.
Host 1:Yeah. Do your research.
Host 2:For sure.
Host 1:Know what you're getting into.
Host 2:And don't be afraid to ask questions.
Host 1:Oh, yeah. Lots of questions.
Host 2:Because like we've been saying, these self adjusting orders, they're not for everyone.
Host 1:Definitely not.
Host 2:They can be really complicated. Right. And if they're not done right
Host 1:Right.
Host 2:They can cause a lot of problems.
Host 1:So as we wrap up this deep dive Okay. I wanna leave you with this question.
Host 2:Alright. I'm listening.
Host 1:Do you think these self adjusting alimony orders Mhmm.
Host 2:Could
Host 1:they ever become, like, the standard way of doing things?
Host 2:Wow. Instead of the exception. Yeah. That's a good question. I mean, they do have the potential to be fairer Right.
Host 2:Over time.
Host 1:If both parties' incomes are constantly changing Uh-huh. It makes sense to have the alimony adjust too.
Host 2:But then there's that unpredictability factor.
Host 1:Alright. You never know what's gonna happen.
Host 2:Exactly. So maybe they'll always be a bit too risky for some people.
Host 1:Yeah.
Host 2:It's hard to say.
Host 1:Well, Attorney King's blog post has definitely given us a lot to think about.
Host 2:It has for sure.
Host 1:And I think it's a good reminder that the law is constantly evolving.
Host 2:Well, it's changing.
Host 1:So it's important to stay informed.
Host 2:And to have a good lawyer on your side.
Host 1:Absolutely. Well, that's it for this deep dive into the world of self adjusting alimony.
Host 2:Thanks for joining us.
Host 1:We'll see you next time.