According to a recent New York Times article, more couples are staying married in long-term separations instead of getting divorced.

There can be some advantages to staying married, even if separated. For some, their religious or family obligations make divorce impractical. For others, financial considerations can warrant staying married. If a couple continues to share finances, it can often be beneficial (at least for one of the parties) to stay married. But there are risks as well.

In Massachusetts, there is no such thing as a legal separation. This means that if you remain married, even if separated, then there are certain obligations and liabilities that continue. Although there is an action that allows for support in a separation (called a Complaint for Separate Support, Custody and Visitation), this action deals only with the issue of support, custody and visitation for parties living apart. A Separate Support action does not separate assets or debts, and does not address the ongoing obligations, such as joint liabilities.

Depending on the reasons that two people are staying together, long-term separation may make sense, but if your marriage is in reality broken down, you should at least consult with an attorney to know what effect long-term separation could have on your legal rights and obligations. As a simple example, property division and spousal support obligations can be significantly different based solely on the length of the marriage. If you are separated but remain married for a long period of time you could therefore end up with a completely different resolution if divorce was truly inevitable.

Today, June 24, 2010, the day of the iPhone 4.0 release, many, many Apple devotees are waiting in line, no doubt playing games, checking e-mail and surfing the web on their 3GS until they get their hands on the newest iPhone. Well, whether or not you've braved the lines to be the first to have the new device, you can still download the Kelsey & Trask, P.C. Web-Apps and iPhone Apps. (see the end of this post for instructions on how to access these apps on other smartphones as well)

iPhone Apps:

The Child Support Calculator App

Use this worksheet to calculate the presumptive amount of child support to be ordered by the Probate & Family Courts in Massachusetts based on the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines (including all of the calculations required for filling out the court form). You can then save your calculations, and even e-mail them.





Must have app for Family Law Attys - ★★★★★
Review by Mass Attorney

Must have app. Quickly calculate child support according to the guidelines and try different income scenerios.


The Divorce Spousal Support Calculator App

Some states use formulas to calculate presumptive alimony. And notwithstanding the lack of legislative support, some Judges in Massachusetts have suggested doing the same. A Joint Task Force of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association has prepared a draft report which also suggests a formula to calculate the maximum alimony award possible.



All of these formulas are included in this calculator, which we believe can be a valuable resource in helping parties understand a reasonable potential range of spousal support orders.


In addition, you can access the full Article (The Divorce Spousal Support Calculator: An Alimony Formula Resource and Tool for Computing Suggested Alimony Payments in Divorce Cases) directly from the App by clicking on the Settings button in the lower left-hand corner of the App.

Similar to the Child Support Calculator App, you can also save and e-mail your calculations.







The Chapter 7 Means Test Calculator App

The means test is a test required under the new bankruptcy law to determine a debtor's eligibility to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. If your income is greater than the median income for your state of residence and family size, in some cases, creditors have the right to file a motion requesting that the Court dismiss your cases under Section 707(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Use this App to determine whether you qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy under part a of the Chapter 7 Means Test. You can even save or e-mail your calculation to access it later. If your income is greater than the median income for your state of residence and family size, you still might meet part b of the means test after taking into consideration certain expenses and deductions as defined by the Bankruptcy Code. You should consult with an attorney to determine your eligibility.


Web Apps:

These three Apps are also available as Web-Apps and can be accessed directly on our mobile site or through the Apple Web-App Store.

The Child Support Calculator Web-App
   - Direct Link: http://mobile.kelseytrask.com/childsupport.htm

The Divorce Spousal Support Calculator Web-App
   - Direct Link: http://mobile.kelseytrask.com/spousalsupport.htm

The Chapter 7 Means Test Calculator Web-App
   - Direct Link: mobile.kelseytrask.com/meanstest.htm

In addition we have a recently created fourth web-app:

The Chapter 7 Timeline Calculator Web-App
   - Direct Link: mobile.kelseytrask.com/7timeline.htm

The bankruptcy court is very strict regarding deadlines. Often, missing a deadline will result in the dismissal of your Bankruptcy Case. Therefore, it is very important that all documents are filed accurately and on time with the Bankruptcy Court.

This App displays approximate dates for deadlines and events in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case when you enter a filing date. These dates are subject to change by amendments to the U.S. Code, or may vary due to local rules or practices or even due to the specific facts of your case. If you have any questions you should consult with an attorney when reviewing this timeline.


Don't have an iPhone, that's okay too. Whether you are an Android, Blackberry or other smartphone user, you can still use all of our great calculators in your web-browser on our mobile pages designed just for smartphones. Just visit m.kelseytrask.com or mobile.kelseytrask.com on your mobile phone and you should see a page that looks something like this:

UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on January 18, 2011 and you can learn more about the Act at MassAlimonyFormula.com or in our recent blog post highlighting the differences between the bill and the current law.

In addition to the Kelsey & Trask MOBILE web site at http://mobile.kelseytrask.com, our Massachusetts Child Support Calculator App, and our Means Test App, we are now offering the Divorce Spousal Support Calculator as an iPhone App.

You can calculate alimony the same as in the full calculator located on our website, but you can also save your calculations, e-mail them, and view the accompanying Article.

And the App is FREE!


Don't worry Droid and Blackberry users, you can still use the mobile calculator in your web browser here.

UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on January 18, 2011 and you can learn more about the Act at MassAlimonyFormula.com or in our recent blog post highlighting the differences between the bill and the current law.

Dealing with a case that includes the potential for both child support and alimony can be quite complicated. For purposes of this discussion, I will assume that the person receiving alimony is also the custodial parent (i.e. the person receiving child support).

First let's get some definitions:

Child Support is the amount of money paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent for the support of the children. Child Support is calculated using a formula called the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines. The formula is presumptive, and Judges can only vary from the formula in specific circumstances. To view the formula and calculate Child Support click here.

Alimony, also called spousal support, is paid by the wage-earning spouse (the spouse who has traditionally earned the majority of the income during the marriage) to the non-wage-earning spouse to allow the non-wage-earning spouse to continue to live in the lifestyle to which he or she has become accustomed during the marriage assuming their is enough income to do so. There is not currently any formula enacted or endorsed by the Massachusetts Legislature or the Courts for the calculation of alimony. The amount of alimony is dependent on the consideration of all of the factors described in M.G.L. c. 208 Section 34.

Some states use formulas to calculate presumptive alimony. And notwithstanding Section 34, some Judges in Massachusetts have suggested doing the same in Massachusetts. A Joint Task Force of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association has prepared a draft report which also suggests a formula to calculate the maximum alimony award possible. Although the Court has no obligation to follow these formulas they can be a valuable resource in helping parties understand a reasonable potential range of spousal support orders. The Divorce Spousal Support Calculator which includes all of these formulas and can be accessed by clicking here.

What happens when a case warrants both alimony and child support?

Just as there is no formula for calculating alimony in Massachusetts, there is also no bright-line rule for breaking down how much an order should be alimony and how much should be child support when a case warrants both. The interplay of these two figures can be very complicated because the tax effect to both the payor and the recipient is very different depending on how a support order is broken down.

We have a few observations based on three possible ways of making this calculation.

Option 1: If one were to calculate child support (using The Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines) and alimony (using The Divorce Spousal Support Calculator) and simply add them together, the overall support figure would likely be too high for the payor. For example, suppose a couple where the payor/non-custodial parent, Chris Jones, earns $125,000 per year, and the recipient/custodial parent, Pat Jones, earns $25,000 per year. Assuming no health insurance cost, 1 child (and no other child support orders), and no day care costs, the child support order would be $759 per week. Assuming a 20 year marriage, the average of the first five alimony formulas is $644.60 per week. Simply adding these together results in a total support order of $1403.60 per week ($72,987.20 per year), which is 58% of Chris' gross income (resulting in Pat receiving 65% of the total family income). This would likely leave Chris with not enough funds to support Chris' household.

Option 2: Some Judges have indicated at recent conferences that they are inclined to figure out an appropriate alimony order first, and subtract child support from that figure. In our example above, the child support was greater than the alimony, so there would be no alimony order. Chris would pay only the $759 per week in child support resulting in an annual income to Chris of $85,532 (taxed as $125,000) and an annual income to Pat of $64,468 (taxed as $25,000). After taking into account taxes these incomes are relatively close together, though Chris ends up with more than 50% of the income.

Option 3: Another possibility, suggested by one Judge to the author, is to estimate alimony, and then run the child support guidelines on the post-alimony incomes. In this example, if Chris pays $644.60 per week in alimony, Chris' post-alimony income is $91,480.80 and Pat's post-alimony income is $58,519.20. The Child Support using these figures is $558 per week. The resulting income to Chris would therefore be $62,464.80 (taxed as $91,480.80) and to Pat would be $87,535.20 (taxes as $58,519.20). Although resulting in a lower figure than Option 1, this may still result in too high an order for may Judges (and payors).

These examples demonstrate the difficulty of trying to use these formulas together without reviewing some common-sense evaluation of the budgetary needs of each party. For the example case the likely fair figure is somewhere between Option 2 and Option 3. It makes sense to have some of the order be alimony in order to move some of the taxable income to the lower tax bracket. It may not be practical, though, for the total order to be as high as $1,202.60 per week.

UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on January 18, 2011 and you can learn more about the Act at MassAlimonyFormula.com or in our recent blog post highlighting the differences between the bill and the current law.

As previously reported on this Blog, there is an ongoing (and at times heated) debate in Massachusetts right now over how to amend the alimony statute. Despite how long this debate has been going on, it appears that we may finally be closer to some changes.

The Legislative Task Force appointed by Newton Senator, Cynthia Creem, is reportedly close to a recommendation which could have the backing of Judges, attorneys and at least some of the reformists. Although the final Bill is not complete yet, it will likely be filed prior to the deadline for this session, January 21, 2011, and include provisions relating to guidelines and duration as recomended by the Joint Task Force Report. It is also likely that the new Bill will address issues raised by the recent Pierce decision as to how alimony should be affected by retirement.

We'll have to wait until the Bill is filed to report on the actual specifics, but stay tuned!

UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on January 18, 2011 and you can learn more about the Act at MassAlimonyFormula.com or in our recent blog post highlighting the differences between the bill and the current law.

In March of 2010 Attorney Justin Kelsey of Kelsey & Trask, P.C. was contacted by the NYS Law Revision Commission because of his involvement in co-authoring the Divorce Spousal Support Calculator. The NYS Law Revision Commission was asked by a member of the New York State Assembly to investigate how other states were addressing the issue of alimony formulas. Attorney Kelsey discussed the issues at length during a telephone conversation with the executive director of the Commission and expressed his opinion (as described in a past blog post) that a formula at least has the advantage of treating everyone the same and offering consistency to the treatment of alimony by different Judges. It is possible that Attorney Kelsey played some small part, therefore, in the newest changes to New York's alimony provisions.

In addition to adding No-Fault Divorce, a recent New York law that went into effect this month also contains a formula for calculating "temporary maintenance." This temporary spousal support defined in New York Domestic Relations Law Section 236 Part B(5-a) only lasts until either party dies or a final award of maintenance is awarded under Part B(6). Although, there is no formula for post-divorce maintenance, the temporary maintenance formula would likely be instructive for long-term maintenance in many cases.

Similar to the Massachusetts statute, post-divorce maintenance is based on numerous factors including length of the marriage, age and health of both parties, income-earning capacity, needs of the children etc. The calculation for temporary support in the new statute, however, is based on a formula, with the ability to deviate if application of some of these same factors suggests the calculated award is unfair. Essentially this sets up the presumption of a formula with the ability for parties to still argue against the use of the formula.

The formula is explained in Appendix B of the Temporary Maintenance Guidelines Worksheet available on the NY State Court's website. Essentially it calculates whether the payee's net income is more than 2/3 of the payor's net income, in which case there is no alimony award. If the payee's net income is less than 2/3 of the payor's net income then the award will be the lessor of

a. 30% of payor's net income minus 20% of payee's net income; or
b. 40% of the total net income of both parties minus the net income of the payee.

In addition there is a low income adjustment in some cases and the temporary maintenance formula only applies for payors whose net annual income is below $500,000.

For more information and a critique of this new law read this news story on YNN, or this blog post on Legal Match Law Blog.

We will not be updating the Divorce Spousal Support Calculator to include this formula at this time because the New York formula deals only with temporary maintenance orders, while the other formulas currently included in the calculator are intended for post-divorce support.

UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on January 18, 2011 and you can learn more about the Act at MassAlimonyFormula.com or in our recent blog post highlighting the differences between the bill and the current law.

Because of my involvement in the creation of the Divorce Spousal Support Calculator I am often asked if I think alimony in Massachusetts is fair.

Of course, this is a loaded question, and so my typical answer is that nothing in the law is "fair", it is simply our best efforts to be "fair and equitable." In creating the Calculator, however, I have already expressed a desire for greater consistency. This in itself is an admission that I would like to see improvement in the current statute.

Many others have expressed there displeasure with the current statute as well. As a result there is an ongoing (and at times heated) debate in Massachusetts right now over how to amend the statute. But how this debate is now framed is a trap. There is no right answer because the choices are both inadequate.

The Boston Business Journal (Dueling Alimony Bills Raise Hackles in Legal Circles), NECN, WBZ, the MetroWest Daily News, and even The Wall Street Journal have all covered the debate with varying degrees of impartiality. Many of these stories concentrate on two bills that have been presented in the Massachusetts Legislature. The House Bill No. 1785 would add numerous changes to the current statute, including limitations on duration, sunset provisions reducing alimony after five years, limitations on increases in alimony to specific circumstances, termination of alimony upon retirement of the payor or cohabitation of the recipient, and limitations on the courts' ability to consider cohabitation of the payor. The Senate Bill No. 1616 would add only the words "and duration" to the language specifying the powers of the courts to determine alimony.

The current statute, MGL Chapter 208 Section 34, gives Judges broad discretion in awarding alimony. Although it is my experience that most Judges are fair in their rulings, the lack of firm direction in the statute forces many cases to trial that might otherwise have been settled. Much of the criticism of the Senate Bill centers around this issue of protracted and expensive litigation. Indeed, the proponent of the Senate Bill, Newton Senator, Cynthia Creem, has been attacked as having a conflict of interest because she practices family law, and could potentially benefit from increased litigation costs.

Unfortunately, this is the type of debate you receive when only two solutions are presented to a very complicated and diverse set of problems. There are multiple criticisms of the current statute. They include the fact that the statute doesn't limit the duration of alimony, encourages litigation of the issue of alimony by its vagueness, and that it fails to address numerous scenarios in which unfair results may occur (such as forcing a payor to continue support after retirement age or when the recipient is cohabitating).

The Senate Bill admittedly only addresses one of these issues, the issue of duration. But to say that it further encourages litigation is a mistake. The current state of the law in Massachusetts is that Judges to do not have the authority to limit the duration of alimony in a Judgment. This forces further litigation because a Modification action is necessary to end alimony in cases where temporary alimony was appropriate or retirement has changed the circumstances. Adding the duration language suggested in the Senate bill could avoid future litigation, by allowing Judge's to address this issue in the original order.

In contrast, the House Bill attempts to address many of these issues at once, but takes a very specific position with respect to each issue. Since many of the proponents of this bill are alimony payors themselves (such as those quoted in another BBJ article) their conflict of interest is obvious (as opposed to the supposed conflict of interest of Senator Creem).

There are multiple ways other than the changes described by House Bill No. 1785 that we could improve the law in Massachusetts without moving it too far in favor of the potential payors. For instance, Maine has a statute that defines different types of alimony, allowing a Judge to order transitional or reimbursement support in cases where long-term support may not be appropriate.

Similarly, the House Bill's failure to address the creation of a formula (or at least a maximum), as recommended by the AAML, will leave us with the same problems of ongoing litigation. The House Bill might solve the problems of some of its proponents, but it is not going to reduce the litigation of most alimony cases which will still require the input of a Judge to decide the ultimate amount of spousal support payments.

This is why it's a trap to ask any experienced practitioner to choose between Option A (the House Bill) and Option B (the Senate Bill).

Whether or not changes to the statute favor the recipient or the payor, true reform of the alimony statute should provide consistency. Therefore, the most fair way to amend the statute would be to include both a durational component and a formula for calculating the appropriate amount of alimony, while still allowing Judges to vary from the presumption if they make findings that a specific factor (as suggested by the AAML) warrants such a deviation. This is the only way to reduce litigation and provide consistency.

While everyone may not consider a formula "fair", it will at least have the advantage of treating everyone the same, and the first step towards fairness is consistency.

For more information about the various formulas in use in other states (and by some Massachusetts Judges) view the Divorce Spousal Support Calculator or our accompanying Article.

UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on January 18, 2011 and you can learn more about the Act at MassAlimonyFormula.com or in our recent blog post highlighting the differences between the bill and the current law.

The Stevenson-Kelsey Spousal Support Calculator has been renamed. It will now be known as the Divorce Spousal Support Calculator: An Alimony Formula Resource.

We are hoping that this name change will reflect our intention that the calculator be used by everyone to evaluate the reasonableness of alimony proposals in divorce cases. In keeping with that goal, we have also updated the latest calculator worksheet and article to include statutes from both Texas and Maine relating to alimony.

In addition, the article contains reference to the latest debate in Massachusetts surrounding a House and Senate bill both proposing changes to the current Massachusetts statute relating to alimony. Thank you to everyone who has provided us with support in keeping this calculator updated with the latest developments in alimony.

The short answer is that Judges in Massachusetts can consider inheritance or potential inheritances when dividing property in Massachusetts. This does not mean that inheritances are split equally but they will play a part in how property is divided and may affect support orders as well. Whether an inheritance has been received or not can make a big difference in how it affects the division and support.

Inheritances Received During or Before the Marriage

In Massachusetts the division of marital property in a divorce case is controlled by M.G.L. Chapter 208 Section 34, which states in pertinent part:

"In addition to or in lieu of a judgment to pay alimony, the court may assign to either husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other, including but not limited to, all vested and nonvested benefits, rights and funds accrued during the marriage and which shall include, but not be limited to, retirement benefits, military retirement benefits if qualified under and to the extent provided by federal law, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation and insurance."

This means that the Judge in a divorce case can consider how to divide all property that is in the name of either person, and this includes property that was inherited during or before the marriage. However, as part of the division, the Judges can consider the "contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their respective estates..."

As an example, if a Husband received inherited property prior to the marriage, then the Wife likely didn't have anything to do with the acquisition. But if the inheritance was then placed in a joint account or used to purchase a marital home, then it is arguable that the Wife had a part in the preservation or appreciation of the asset. This is called "merging" an asset into the marital estate. If the Husband inherited property during the marriage, then it is also possible the Wife contributed to the acquisition if she, for example, had a good relationship with the deceased. These are the types of factors that will be taken into consideration in deciding what an "equitable" division of the inherited property would be.

Inheritances Likely to Received After the Marriage

One of the factors that the Judges in Massachusetts must consider in dividing assets and determining alimony is the "the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income." This could include the possibility or likelihood of a future inheritance. Although inheritances aren't guaranteed because living relatives can change their wills before they die, the Court can consider how likely that is to happen, especially if the potential inheritance is significant.

In one case a party's parents objected to providing information about their estate plan arguing that because an expectancy of inheritance cannot be presently divided it should also not be discoverable. Vaughan v. Vaughan, SJC Single Justice, No. 91-485, p. 3 (1991) (unpublished).

The Single Justice in Vaughan held: "Although it is true that Allan's expectancy interests are not subject to division, a [probate court] judge, nevertheless, might properly take them into account in determining what disposition to make of the property which is subject to division."

Since the Vaughan case it has become common practice in a case where there is a potential inheritance for the relative to provide what is referred to as a Vaughan Affidavit describing in some detail the extent of their estate and their current estate plan. A properly completed Vaughan Affidavit should provide you with enough information to know whether a potential inheritance is significant enough to be considered by the Judge when determining the current division or support orders.