News
Spencer argues alimony law before the Supreme Court
UMass Law's Shaun Spencer argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the state's alimony law should allow alimony payments that maintain the savings patterns the parties followed during their marriage.
Shaun Spencer, associate dean for academic affairs at UMass Law, argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Court for a broad interpretation of the state's child support law. In the case of Openshaw v. Openshaw was concerned with the former husband's appeal of an alimony order that provided $1,000 per week for the former wife to continue the parties' savings practice during their marriage. Under Massachusetts law, alimony is generally the amount required by the recipient spouse to maintain the marital lifestyle to the extent that the paying spouse is solvent. The husband argued that savings should not be considered part of the marital lifestyle.
Spencer argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of his wife: “Drang[d] The court did not make an exception to the marital lifestyle for three reasons. First, it would create alimony shield – it would allow the manipulation of financial affairs to protect potentially decades of future income from the alimony assessment. Second, it would exacerbate the economic injustice suffered by spouses who have been out of the workforce for years and have been full-time caregivers. And thirdly, it would be based on … an incoherent distinction between two different types of financial allocation by the parties.”
Two organizations filed amicus briefs supporting the inclusion of savings in marital lifestyles: the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Family Advocacy Coalition. Both organizations provided empirical evidence of the long-term harm suffered by spouses, most often women, who are out of the workforce for decades to raise the family's children and are therefore less able to save for retirement after divorce. For example, the Massachusetts Family Advocacy Coalition cited a Government Accounting Office study that found that “women's household income fell by an average of 41% upon divorce after age 50, nearly twice the decline for men.” Similarly Wisely, the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts explained the consequences of the “lifelong income gap” that women face after divorce due to “discrimination, traditional family roles and shared family decisions.”
Spencer was also quoted in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article about the case. As he told the newspaper: “The [SJC] has rejected any notion that capital expenditure – such as parties where one enjoys vacation homes, second homes, expensive jewelry, furs, etc. – cannot be part of it [the marital] Lifestyle…. And there’s really no reason why spending money on saving for the future should be any different.”
A video of the full hearing will be available on the Supreme Court's YouTube page. The court is expected to announce its decision in spring 2024.
Comments are closed.