Doktor v. Doktor

FACTS:
1.  Husband and Wife were divorced by a judgment nisi that entered in January 1992.
2.  The judgment incorporated a separation agreement that, among other things, obligated the Husband to pay alimony to Wife in the amount of $00 until "the death or remarriage of the Wife."  That provision merged with the judgment.
3.  Husband filed a complaint for modification in the Probate and Family court seeking termination of alimony obligation under the Alimony Reform Act (G.L. c. 208, section 49(f), which provides that "general term alimony orders shall terminate upon the payor attaining the full retirement age."  He asserted that he had retired, and was past the normal age of retirement as defined by the alimony reform act.
4. Thereafter, he filed an amended complaint for modification, asserting a further change in circumstances that his former wife was no longer in need of alimony.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
1.  Following a trial, a Probate and Family Court judge dismissed the Husband's complaint for modification, concluding that G.L. c. 208, section 49 (f) (retirement provision), applies prospectively, and therefore that the Husband was required to, but had not, established that there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification.
2.  Husband appealed, and the SJC granted his petition for direct appellate review.

ISSUE:
1.  This case raised a question relative to retroactive application of the retirement provision of the alimony reform act to alimony agreements that merged with judgments of divorce entered prior to March 1, 2012, the effective date of the act.

HOLDING/RULE:
1.  The Legislature intended that the retirement provision to have prospective application; consequently, it is not applicable to modification of the alimony judgment in this case.

ANALYSIS:
1.  Based the analysis on the conclusion of law from Chin v. Merriot.

CONCLUSION:
1.  Affirmed lower court decision.