Rodman v. Rodman

George Rodman and Roberta Rodman were divorced in 2008. The parties entered into a separation agreement that was incorporated into and merged with a judgment of divorce nisi. The separation agreement obligated George to pay Roberta alimony in the amount of $1,539 per week until the death of either party or Roberta’s remarriage. In 2013, George filed a complaint for modification seeking to terminate his obligations to pay alimony to Roberta on the ground that he had reached “full retirement age” as defined by the Alimony Reform Act, which became effective March 1, 2012. A probate and family court judge denied the motion, concluding that the Act was not to be applied retroactively to judgments entered before March 1, 2012. George appealed, arguing that, because his agreement merged with the judgment, it was always subject to modification based on his having reached the age of retirement, and therefore, his complaint for modification did not conflict with the proscription against retroactive application set forth in the Act. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the retirement provision of the Act does not apply retroactively to alimony orders in divorce judgments that entered before March 1, 2012. View "Rodman v. Rodman" on Justia Law