Litigation

Spousal Support; Proper Calculation of Alimony

Where a settlement agreement does not require the filing of documents or other steps prior to a reduction in alimony payments, a trial court may not require that the election date for the reduction commence on the date of the application to the court. Muir v. Muir, Case No. 5D05-1998, Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, February 24, 2006.

When the husband and wife were divorced, the settlement agreement provided that the wife was to receive one-third of the husband's annual gross income, which was $400,000 per year. The agreement also provided that if the husband's income were reduced by more than 20%, the husband had the right to reduce the amount of alimony by a formula set forth in the agreement. Subsequently, the husband became unemployed and then found employment at a salary of $80,000 per year. The husband paid the wife no alimony while he was unemployed and then paid the wife $980 per month once he began receiving his new salary. Although the parties agreed that the husband was entitled to recalculate his alimony, the agreement was silent regarding the effective date of the reduction. The court assigned the date the husband filed the motion to enforce the agreement as the effective date, and, as a result, awarded the wife a large amount of arrears. The husband appealed, and the appellate court reversed and remanded. It found that the settlement agreement, like any other contract, was subject to interpretation. It held that the language of the contract did not require the filing of any particular legal papers to delineate the election date for the husband's reduction. Thus, the election was effective on the date the husband reduced the payments.

Jurisdiction

Residence need not be continuous and uninterrupted for a court to assume jurisdiction over a child support arrears matter. Kingel v. Reill, SJC-09536, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, February 14, 2006.

The parties were divorced in Massachusetts in 1990. The husband relocated first to Tennessee and then to Utah. The wife remained in Massachusetts with the children for some unknown period of time; as of 2002 she resided in New York with the children. While a resident of New York, the wife commenced an action in Massachusetts seeking child support arrears. The husband moved to dismiss, arguing none of the parties resided in Massachusetts. The court agreed and dismissed the action. The wife then relocated back to Massachusetts with the children in 2003 and commenced the same action for child support arrears. The husband filed another motion to dismiss, which was denied. The husband appealed, arguing that Massachusetts lost jurisdiction over the matter when the wife relocated to New York. The court disagreed. It held that residence need not be continuous and uninterrupted for the court to assume jurisdiction over the matter.

Spousal Support; Proper Calculation of Alimony

Where a settlement agreement does not require the filing of documents or other steps prior to a reduction in alimony payments, a trial court may not require that the election date for the reduction commence on the date of the application to the court. Muir v. Muir, Case No. 5D05-1998, Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, February 24, 2006.

When the husband and wife were divorced, the settlement agreement provided that the wife was to receive one-third of the husband's annual gross income, which was $400,000 per year. The agreement also provided that if the husband's income were reduced by more than 20%, the husband had the right to reduce the amount of alimony by a formula set forth in the agreement. Subsequently, the husband became unemployed and then found employment at a salary of $80,000 per year. The husband paid the wife no alimony while he was unemployed and then paid the wife $980 per month once he began receiving his new salary. Although the parties agreed that the husband was entitled to recalculate his alimony, the agreement was silent regarding the effective date of the reduction. The court assigned the date the husband filed the motion to enforce the agreement as the effective date, and, as a result, awarded the wife a large amount of arrears. The husband appealed, and the appellate court reversed and remanded. It found that the settlement agreement, like any other contract, was subject to interpretation. It held that the language of the contract did not require the filing of any particular legal papers to delineate the election date for the husband's reduction. Thus, the election was effective on the date the husband reduced the payments.

Jurisdiction

Residence need not be continuous and uninterrupted for a court to assume jurisdiction over a child support arrears matter. Kingel v. Reill, SJC-09536, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, February 14, 2006.

The parties were divorced in Massachusetts in 1990. The husband relocated first to Tennessee and then to Utah. The wife remained in Massachusetts with the children for some unknown period of time; as of 2002 she resided in New York with the children. While a resident of New York, the wife commenced an action in Massachusetts seeking child support arrears. The husband moved to dismiss, arguing none of the parties resided in Massachusetts. The court agreed and dismissed the action. The wife then relocated back to Massachusetts with the children in 2003 and commenced the same action for child support arrears. The husband filed another motion to dismiss, which was denied. The husband appealed, arguing that Massachusetts lost jurisdiction over the matter when the wife relocated to New York. The court disagreed. It held that residence need not be continuous and uninterrupted for the court to assume jurisdiction over the matter.