Family Law
Court Nixes Ex-Judge’s Effort to End Alimony After Retirement
Posted Nov 9, 2009 4:27 PM CST
By Martha Neil
Although every situation must be considered based on its own individual facts, at least one retired former judge in Massachusetts will still be expected to continue paying his wife $42,000 a year in alimony.
Voluntary retirement is a factor that can be considered in a petition to reduce alimony, but it doesn't automatically end the former spouse's obligation to pay, the state's top court ruled today in a case brought by Rudolph Pierce, a well-known former federal magistrate and Massachusetts judge. Hence, Pierce, who has earned as much as $570,000 annually in private practice, must continue to ante up to his ex-wife, reports the Boston Globe.
His obligation to his former spouse of 32 years was reduced from $110,000 to $42,000 annually after he voluntarily retired at age 65, the newspaper notes. The couple divorced in 1999.
"Fundamentally, in this case the message is he retired prematurely," says attorney Anthony Doniger, who represents Pierce. "He's got to keep working because he's got to keep paying her, albeit a reduced amount."
Carneice Pierce needs alimony because she lost her job and is not yet 65, explains the opinion by Associate Justice Ralph Gants.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
David
Nov 9, 2009 7:26 PM CST
So retiring at 65 is “voluntary retirement”? How about that slacker judge, wanting to retire at 65? I am sure they are hiring greeters at Wal-Mart; he should keep working. Sheesh.
What is involuntary retirement? Death? Is that when alimony stops?
What a cruel joke that marriage and the reign of the family courts have become. Men: Don’t Get Married!
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Nov 10, 2009 12:25 AM CST
Hey, it’s $42K a year. Not likely to ruin him.
Flag this comment
Small Potatoes
Nov 10, 2009 7:55 AM CST
$42K, tax deductible alimony—-that’s pocket change for this guy (less than 10% of his income). He can pay that from petty cash.
Flag this comment
Slave Labor
Nov 10, 2009 3:52 PM CST
neither the court, nor the above posters, have supplied a good reason for why it is ok for MRS. pierce to voluntary quit her job because she was too old, yet it is not ok for Mr. pierce. this case makes the massachusetts frame work look like an anachronism that egalitarian and inconsistent with todays values.
Flag this comment
Plain Jane
Nov 10, 2009 5:51 PM CST
Mass. alimony laws are barbaric and archaic. They are now widely understood to be 100 years out of date. Alimony payers (97% are men) are routinely jailed, impoverished, forced into bankruptcy, and forced to have their second spouses incomes and assets considered in alimony modifications. Many women in MA refuse to marry men with alimony obligations that originate in MA (they apply everywhere in the country if they originate in MA). Thousands of citizens are outraged, treated unjustly, and they, along with 72 co-sponsors, support a reform bill currently being considered in the state legislature. To learn more and find out how you can help change these laws, if you live in MA or you know someone who does, please contact Mass Alimony Reform. www.massalimonyreform.org.
Flag this comment
Plain Jane
Nov 10, 2009 6:07 PM CST
to small potatoes- I think you misread the story. Mr. Pierce has retired and is not making $500K. He is collecting social security. His new wife’s income was cited as evidence for why he has money to pay his ex-wife (who has $1 m in assets) alimony - bec. the new wife pays some household expenses. MA is the only state in the country where second spouses are ROUTINELY forced to produce financial documents and to have their income and assets (even if it’s life insurance from a dead husband) counted as available to the ex-wife.
Flag this comment
Joe Girolamo
Nov 11, 2009 9:02 AM CST
Plain Jane, You miss the whole point. When they divorced she already got half of his retirement and worked for an additional 10 years to add to her retirement. To ask him to continue to pay from his retirement is double dipping. He is paying her from his half of the asset split. If your argument were valid, she would be able to blow every dime because his assets would still be available to her. This is absurd.
Flag this comment
Luckstyle
Nov 11, 2009 10:26 AM CST
The issue isn’t whether a payor of alimony has the money or makes the money, its the unfairness of being obligated to pay someone who is fully capable of working and paying for themselves. Carneice Pierce obviously decided to stop working and leech off her ex spouse for $42K per year because the courts said she could, not because she deserved it. She has assets and the $300 K debt she has is probably the remaining mortgage on her $1000000 house she owns (or she was incredibly irresponsible with her credit card). Maybe she should consider moving into an apartment she herself can afford rather than assuming she is entitled to a lifestyle someone once provided for her. To those who think he can afford it (small change) I’m glad you have money to burn. Send your own $42 K to charity. Joe, you missed the point. Plain Jane’s point is that if a married ex wife has a spouse who pays alimony and he has a decline in income then the 1st ex can go after the new wife’s income to maintain the alimony support level. Since when did they legalize hallucinogens. That’s the only reason I can see for allowing current alimony laws to continue the way they are written. The only way to stop this lunacy is to support HR1785. Write and call you state legislators.
Flag this comment
Barry
Nov 11, 2009 3:50 PM CST
Translation: “Till Death Do You Work”.
I guess it’s ok for the lesser-earner ex-spouse to voluntarily retire (by quitting her job because she doesn’t like her new role after company’s re-org), but it’s a crime when the higher-earner ex-spouse quits his. The ruling defies fairness and logic.
I thought the slogan went “Her Body, Her Choice”. Since when did it also become “His Wallet”?
Welcome to Feminist Utopia. It is starting to feel eerily similar to Communist Utopia.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Nov 14, 2009 8:44 PM CST
I think “Her Body, His Wallet” describes many marriages and other longterm relationships in our society. To the extent the parties to those relationships find that satisfactory, I do not see a reason to wax all judgmental about it. In this particular case, the parties were married 32 years, and the judge has been paying for another ten (and well might for another 20 or so). I guess that can be viewed as similar to a continuing performance royalty.
Flag this comment
Hart123
Nov 16, 2009 9:10 AM CST
If there was ever any doubt as to the need for IMMEDIATE action from the Massachusetts legislature for alimony reform, the recently announced decision by the Supreme Judicial Court (Pierce v. Pierce) that effectively prohibits alimony payers from ever retiring puts the nail in the coffin. Proposed bill H1785 with 72 legislative co-sponsors is exactly the solution to best serve the overwhelming public interest and move our antiquated and grossly unfair alimony laws into the 21st century. The Probate and Family Courts in Massachusetts are over crowded with divorce and alimony modification cases, forcing judges, as amply demonstrated in the Pierce case, to make their own “cookie-cutter” rules based upon outdated and archaic case law (most of which was written several centuries ago!!). Each judge metes out his or her own alimony decisions based on their personal guidelines and the decisions simply do not reflect life as it is now. People deserve finality and closure from the disastrous effects of divorce. The current laws only continue pain, suffering, financial disaster, and the loss of the right to retire at the age acknowledged by the Social Security act. The time has come for the Legislature to add structure and guidelines to the alimony laws in Massachusetts and H1785 does just that. It is imperative that responsible members of the legal community stand up and do right by this issue as, sadly, the local bar associations are further damaging the public image of your profession. The Boston Bar Association is doing all that they can to preserve their economic interest in the chaotic status quo at the expense of the compelling public interest served by reform—and the public has noticed. Your voice is needed now in support of H1785.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.