Chin v. Merriot

Chester Chin and Edith Merriot were divorced in 2011. Pursuant to a merged provision of the parties’ separation agreement, Chin was obligated to pay alimony until the death of either party or Edith’s remarriage. In 2013, Chin filed a complaint for modification seeking to terminate his alimony obligation, asserting that, as changed circumstances, he had reached full retirement age and Merriot had been cohabiting with another person. A probate and family court judge dismissed the complaint, concluding (1) neither the retirement or cohabitation provision of the Alimony Reform Act applied retrospectively to divorce judgments ordering general term alimony that were in existence prior to the effective date of the Act on March 1, 2012; and (2) under the change of circumstances standard in effect before March 1, 2012, Chin was not entitled to modification of the alimony order. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) with respect to the alimony obligation, the retirement and cohabitation provisions of the Act apply prospectively and therefore afford no basis upon which to terminate the alimony order; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the judge’s findings that there were no changed circumstances that would require an adjustment to the amount of alimony Chin had been ordered to pay. View "Chin v. Merriot" on Justia Law