Casner & Edwards announces a significant appellate victory by Partners Marc E. Fitzgerald, Nicole M. Jorge and Viktor A. Theiss in the published decision of Smith v. Smith, 23-P-830, issued by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on May 6, 2025. The decision affirms a Norfolk Probate and Family Court judgment that substantially increased the client’s child support and alimony, establishing key precedent in post-divorce modification law. The Appeals Court’s decision is expected to be widely cited in future alimony and child support modification cases across Massachusetts, particularly for its comprehensive analysis of financial changes post-divorce and the balancing of equitable outcomes.
The case involved a modification of a 2018 divorce judgment and centered on the parties' financial circumstances and parenting roles years after the original order. Fitzgerald and Jorge represented the former wife, Monique Armstrong, who sought increased support based on her former husband’s dramatically improved income and diminished parenting time.
In affirming the trial court’s judgment, the Appeals Court endorsed several important legal principles, including:
- Application of the Cavanagh Framework: The Appeals Court upheld the trial judge’s detailed analysis under the three-step Cavanagh v. Cavanagh framework, affirming that alimony and child support must be calculated and compared under both ordering scenarios before crafting the most equitable result.
- Consideration of Lifestyle in Support Awards: The opinion emphasizes that a recipient spouse’s "need" for alimony is measured not just by current expenses, but by the marital lifestyle—a crucial clarification affirming that lifestyle degradation is grounds for upward modification when justified by the payor's post-divorce income increases.
- Support Above Guidelines: The Court validated an upward deviation in child support above the presumptive guidelines amount, noting both the father’s significantly higher income and his lack of ongoing parenting involvement. The ruling reiterates that child support should reflect parental resources and prevent a “gross disparity in standard of living” between households.
- Tax Considerations: The decision reaffirms that while judges must consider tax implications when provided with clear, instructive evidence, they are not required to be tax experts or to conduct detailed tax calculations independently. This affirms practical boundaries on judicial responsibility in financial cases.
“This is a major decision for family law practitioners and parties involved in post-divorce support litigation,” said Fitzgerald. “The ruling provides clarity and reassurance on how courts can address significant income changes, parenting responsibility, and lifestyle disparities while remaining within the bounds of fairness and legal discretion.”
Fitzgerald handles all aspects of domestic relations, equity matters and probate litigation, including divorce, custody, modification actions, child support, alimony, paternity, guardianship, adoption, pre- and postnuptial agreements, de facto parenting and will contests. He represents clients in a variety of litigation, mediation and conciliation involving complex business/pension valuation, asset division, alimony matters, inheritances, custody disputes, child support disputes, domestic violence and non-traditional family structure. Fitzgerald also acts as a parent coordinator, discovery master and Attorney Representing Children (ARC).
