WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 1099

Enacts the freedom to read act

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Samra Brouk and 8 co-sponsors

The bill lets alimony be modified for cohabitation or retirement, clarifies pre-2012 orders as general term alimony, and protects written survivorship agreements.

RETURNED TO SENATE
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 1099

Summary — S.1099: "An Act reforming alimony in the Commonwealth"

Status & procedure
- Filed in the Senate (Senate Docket No. 1983) on 01/17/2025; referred to the Judiciary.
- Hearing scheduled: 04/22/2025, 1:00 PM–5:00 PM (room A-2).
- Sponsor: Sen. Paul R. Feeney. (Bill text notes similar matter filed in 2023–24.)

Purpose
- To revise Massachusetts law governing alimony (spousal support), with particular focus on (1) how pre‑existing alimony orders are treated, (2) circumstances that permit modification, and (3) protections for written agreements between parties.

Key provisions
1. Definitions and scope (amendment to Chapter 124 of the Acts of 2011)
- Defines key terms: “alimony,” “existing alimony judgment” (orders entered prior to March 1, 2012), “general term alimony,” “payor,” and “recipient.”
- Declares that existing alimony judgments are treated as “general term alimony.”

  1. Modification and durational limits

    • Existing alimony judgments that exceed the durational limits in G.L. c.208, §49 are presumed a material change in circumstances for modification and may be modified on complaint without requiring an additional showing, unless the court finds that deviation from the durational limits is warranted.

  2. Cohabitation as material change

    • A payor may seek modification if the recipient is cohabitating. The bill instructs courts to consider cohabitation under §49(d) a material change when ruling.
    • General term alimony may be suspended, reduced, or terminated if the recipient maintains a “common household” with another person for a continuous period of at least 3 months.
    • The bill lists non‑exclusive factors for determining a “common household” (shared primary residence, economic interdependence, joint roles, community reputation, etc.).
    • Suspended/reduced alimony may be reinstated if cohabitation ends, but any reinstated payments cannot extend beyond the original order’s termination date.

  3. Retirement as material change

    • A payor reaching “full retirement age” may file for modification; the court must consider retirement as a material change. Courts may extend an existing order for good cause, but must enter written findings.

  4. Contractual protections for written agreements

    • Adds to G.L. c.208, §53 language indicating an exception where a deviation applies under subsection (e).
    • Creates a new §56: an alimony judgment in which the parties expressly agreed in writing that the judgment “survives” or is “not modifiable” shall not be modified by a court without the consent of both parties.

Who would be affected
- Payors (persons ordered to pay alimony): gains clearer grounds to seek modification based on cohabitation, durational limit excess, or retirement; potential for earlier termination or reduction of obligations.
- Recipients (persons receiving alimony): face increased risk of suspension/termination of payments when cohabiting; however, recipients who entered written agreements specifying survivorship/non‑modifiability retain strong protection.
- Courts: provided statutory guidance and criteria for evaluating cohabitation and modification petitions; required to make written findings when extending orders for retirement reasons.
- Family law practitioners and mediators: changes affect negotiation, drafting, and enforcement of alimony agreements, especially for pre‑2012 judgments.

Potential impact and considerations
- Increases predictability for payors seeking modification of older or long‑duration orders, and clarifies cohabitation standards (3‑month threshold and enumerated factors).
- Preserves parties’ autonomy where they expressly agree that an order survives or is not modifiable.
- May reduce some recipients’ ongoing support in cases of cohabitation or payor retirement; reinstatement limits may leave gaps in long‑term support.
- Implementation will require courts to assess factual cohabitation inquiries more frequently; litigants may need additional evidence and fact‑finding.

Note
- The circulated bill text in the packet is a condensed excerpt; readers and stakeholders should consult the full bill language and legislative analyses for procedural details, possible amendments, and final statutory placement.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.