MODIFICATION OF ALIMONY
Dolan v. Dolan
During the parties’ twenty-seven-year marriage, Lisa Dolan managed the household, cared for their two children, and earned a modest wage working part-time. Conversely, her spouse, Shaun Dolan, was the primary wage earner and a co-owner of a company where he earned $481,233 annually. Due to the significant difference in the parties’ wages, the wife’s need for support to maintain the marital lifestyle, and the husband’s ability to pay, the court awarded the wife $2,885 in alimony per week. As further part of the asset division, the husband maintained his ownership interest in his company.
Nearly two years later, the husband sold the company, with his share of the profits totaling more than $2.5 million. With the sale, the husband was only guaranteed an annual salary of $300,000 for the first two years, which would subsequently be subject to change in August 2019. This immediately decreased his annual salary by 38%, although the husband would continue to receive compensation for the sale through July 2019. Following the sale, the husband sought a retroactive modification in the amount of alimony paid to the husband based on his decreased salary.
On appeal, the Court followed the two-step process for a downward modification of alimony: (1) finding that there has been a material change in circumstances and (2) that the modified amount be within the parameters set forth by M.G.L. c. 208 § 53. To find that a material change in circumstances has occurred, the judge would look to the totality of the circumstances – including the husband’s income and assets. Given that the husband’s net worth was increased substantially, combined with his decrease in salary, the court found a material change sufficient enough to meet the threshold required for a modification. However, despite the immediate change in salary, the judge chose to delay the starting date of the lower alimony amount because the husband’s entire financial circumstance will not be materially different until after he stops receiving the benefits from the sale of the company – in August 2019.
The husband argued that the judge erred in delaying the reduction of alimony because M.G.L. c. 208 § 53(c)(1) prohibits a judge to consider capital gains from an asset received in the divorce. This argument failed because despite the source of the additional income being relevant for calculating the amount of alimony, it is not a factor in determining if there has been a material change under M.G.L. c. 208 § 49(e). The Court reasoned that the Legislature would have expressly included the provision within § 49(e) if they so desired – but they chose not to. Therefore, the husband was found to be capable of continuing to pay the established alimony amount until August 2019, at which time his financial situation would materially change.
Alimony can be complicated. If you have any questions about your rights or obligations regarding alimony in your situation, please reach out to us.
