The recent decision in Openshaw v. Openshaw by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has transformative implications for alimony in Massachusetts. The court affirmed that regular savings practices during a marriage are part of the marital lifestyle and should be considered when setting alimony. The ruling acknowledges that savings, not just consumption, contribute to maintaining a spouse’s standard of living post-divorce. The court noted that it was joining “the vast majority of jurisdictions” in recognizing a judge’s right to consider a married couple’s established practice of saving as part of the determination of alimony.
As a result of Openshaw, alimony calculations in future cases may need to reflect the couple’s saving habits. Openshaw has made it possible for the recipient spouse to continue in this practice of saving rather than being forced to choose between maintaining the marital lifestyle or continuing to save.
The Openshaw decision centered on Amy Sue Openshaw and Glen Romney Openshaw, a couple who had a consistent practice of saving a portion of their income throughout their marriage. Although the couple had an annual income of $1.3 million, they were not excessive spenders, which is what the Court would typically look to in determining the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. Significant portions of their income went to savings and charitable contributions. Both the wife’s habit of saving and her charitable contributions were included in the consideration of alimony. Probate Court Judge Edward G. Boyle III set the alimony amount at $5,020 per week, factoring in the wife’s reported weekly spending, which included $1,000 for savings and $730.64 a week in charitable giving. In total, the husband was ordered to pay a total of $6,000 per week, including child support. The husband contested this decision, arguing that savings should not be included in the marital lifestyle consideration for alimony. The court ruled that regular savings are in fact part of the marital lifestyle and are relevant in making alimony determinations.
Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt opined that the interpretation of the marital lifestyle can be based on G.L.c. 208, §53(b), which references the recipient’s “need,” to maintain the standard of living during the marriage. She pointed out that some spouses are more liberal with spending on vacations and other forms of discretionary spending, and since these marital lifestyle practices are relevant to the setting of alimony, a habit of saving should be too.
A spouse who has sacrificed earning potential during the marriage may not attain that earning potential in the future, especially where savings are required. If the marital spending threshold was lower, then the spouse will be left with less overall, without the benefits of the marital spending practice.
The court’s ruling in Openshaw has broadened how the court determines what the marital lifestyle consists of when determining the lower income earner’s need for alimony. Each case will be different however, and it remains to be seen how the courts will determine a regular practice of savings, or how this ruling could apply to different kinds of income.
If you are going through a divorce with significant assets and you are concerned about the future of your lifestyle, please contact our team to learn about how we can assist you. At Mansur Law Group we have years of experience navigating divorces with significant assets in which complex interdependencies between spouses must be considered. Please contact us to speak to a member of our team.