Zaleski v. Zaleski
469 Mass. 230 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act, a court may award time-limited rehabilitative alimony, rather than long-term general alimony, based on a spouse's realistic potential for future reemployment, even without a specific job offer, where evidence of their education, work history, and skills supports the expectation that they can become economically self-sufficient within a predictable timeframe.
Facts:
- Carolyn Zaleski (wife) and Stephen Zaleski (husband) were married for approximately sixteen years and had two children.
- The husband was an executive in real estate investment with a base salary of $400,000 and significant annual bonuses, with total income often exceeding $900,000.
- The wife held a business degree and had a successful career as a pharmaceutical sales district manager, earning a base salary around $130,000 plus bonuses until her employment was terminated in 2007.
- From 2008 until the divorce proceedings, the wife was not employed outside the home and her efforts to find new employment were found by the trial court to be 'sporadic and superficial.'
- During the marriage, the parties lived an 'upper middle class lifestyle' with luxury items and private schooling for their children, but also 'spent beyond their means.'
Procedural Posture:
- In December 2010, Carolyn Zaleski (wife) filed a complaint for divorce against Stephen Zaleski (husband) in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court (trial court).
- Following a trial, the judge entered a judgment of divorce nisi, awarding the wife rehabilitative alimony for five years, dividing marital assets, and requiring her to maintain life insurance as security.
- The wife appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court, challenging the form and amount of alimony, the life insurance requirement, and the division of marital property.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, transferred the case on its own motion before the intermediate appellate court could hear it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act of 2011, does a trial court abuse its discretion by awarding five-year rehabilitative alimony based on a spouse's expected future reemployment, even when there is no specific job offer or definite date of reemployment?
Opinions:
Majority - Duffly, J.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding rehabilitative alimony. A judge has broad discretion to award rehabilitative alimony when a recipient spouse is expected to become economically self-sufficient by a predicted time, and the potential for future reemployment can be the basis for such an award. The Alimony Reform Act allows a judge to consider a party's 'employability through reasonable diligence,' which does not require a specific, identifiable job offer on a date certain. Here, the wife's age, health, education, and significant prior earning history provided sufficient evidence for the judge to conclude, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that she could become self-sufficient through reasonable efforts within the five-year rehabilitative period. However, the court erred in calculating the amount of alimony by excluding the husband's bonus income, as the statute requires consideration of all income as defined by the Child Support Guidelines. The court also abused its discretion by requiring the wife to maintain a large life insurance policy as security, as her financial obligations under the judgment did not justify it. The case is remanded to recalculate the alimony amount and vacate the life insurance order.
Analysis:
This case provides a significant interpretation of the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act of 2011, clarifying the standards for awarding rehabilitative alimony. The decision establishes that a spouse's potential employability, based on their background and skills, can justify a time-limited award, reinforcing the legislative intent to promote economic independence post-divorce. It shifts some of the burden onto the recipient spouse to make diligent efforts toward self-sufficiency, rather than presuming entitlement to long-term support based on the marital lifestyle alone. The ruling gives trial judges flexibility to use rehabilitative alimony in a broader range of circumstances than those with a fixed endpoint like graduation from a degree program.
