Alimony Standards and Recent Reforms
Ian Kahanowitz • June 2, 2025
This is a subtitle for your new post
NAVIGATING THE DELICATE AND COMPLEX ALIMONY STANDARDS IN MASSACHUSETTS: LIVING IN A POST OPENSHAW AND CAVANAGH WORLD
Many couples that are getting divorced in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have to deal with the ever-changing laws of alimony and child support as put in place by the state’s highest courts. In the past three years, the landscape has changed so drastically that it is hard to find competent practitioners who can navigate through this difficult process.
I have represented clients, and have gone to fight for them, who are just so confused and shocked regarding the whole daunting process of alimony. Even the negotiation process for settlement is a scary and nerve racking process because many lawyers don’t have a firm grasp of these new laws. In turn, many lawyers don’t do their clients justice when they are bargaining for alimony and the clients walk away with less due to a misunderstanding of the new laws.
At Bentley Law Group, our attorneys are specifically trained to help our clients with a compass through the never ending maze of catacombs and pitfalls regarding alimony.
We understand our clients and their desire for thorough and competent representation during this difficult process.
As both a lawyer and tax practitioner I believe the best way to address the alimony minefield is to discuss the new laws of the Probate and Family Court system and the tax laws that are interwoven into each of these new laws.
Many practitioners try to understand the new laws but struggle with the tax implications of alimony.
The following is lengthy blog, but t Bentley Law Group, we feel it is necessary to inform clients and future clients about what they are facing in alimony cases.
In the following material you will read,I will explore the complex interaction between two recent alimony cases, Openshaw v. Openshaw (2024) and Cavanagh v. Cavanagh (2022), which have disrupted alimony practice in Massachusetts against a backdrop of shifting tax rules and the state’s increasingly complicated Child Support Guidelines.
THE OLD STANDARD OF ALIMONY AND ITS TAX IMPLICATIONS: THE 30%-35% STANDARD 2013-2019
The Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act (ARA), as set forth in M.G.L. c. 208, § 53, provides Massachusetts’s courts with specific parameters for calculating the amount of alimony in a divorce case. Specifically, the statute suggests that judges should “cap” alimony at an amount that should generally not exceed the recipient’s “need” or 30–35% of the difference in the parties’ gross incomes. Since 2017, however, interpreting the ARA has become increasingly complex, starting with the loss of tax deductibility for alimony payments in 2019, followed soon after by several Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decisions that have increased the legal exposure of Massachusetts payors for higher support orders.
As noted above, the ARA was conceived as a “cap” for alimony calculations, where the statute creates a presumptive ceiling on alimony based on the recipient’s “need” or 30–35% of the difference in the parties’ gross incomes. Until 2019, alimony was tax-deductible for state and federal tax purposes, meaning a former spouse could deduct alimony payments from their taxable income. Deductibility allowed many high-earning alimony payors to recover more than 40% of their alimony payments through tax savings based on their tax bracket. In practice, deductibility allowed the ARA’s language to act less like a “cap” and more like a formula, with most alimony cases resolving with an order calculated at 30–35% of the difference in the parties’ gross incomes between 2013 and 2019.
In essence tax deductibility was a win-win in alimony cases. Most alimony payors, who typically generated earnings at higher tax brackets, received a substantial tax refund through tax deductibility. Meanwhile, most alimony recipients, who typically fell within substantially lower tax brackets, were often content to pay the taxes on the alimony they received at their lower tax rates, since paying the taxes generally meant higher alimony awards.
A DRASTIC CHANGE IN THE TAX LAWS
In 2019, this delicate balance was thrown off by the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which passed in 2017 and became law two years later. Under the TCJA, alimony payments would no longer be deductible for federal tax purposes in new divorce cases starting in 2019. By tax year 2022, Massachusetts followed suit, eliminating state deductibility.
The impact of TCJA continues to be felt in Massachusetts as courts grapple with applying the ARA’s 30–35% “formula” in a world where alimony payors can no longer write off payments to their former spouses. In many alimony cases, attorneys submitted worksheets to judges that reverse-engineered the ARA’s 30–35% calculation into an after-tax number. The reality is a shocking as most alimony calculations end up between a 20% to $25% figure that is far below the old 30% to 35% standard
A FIRE STORM HITS ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT IN THE CAVANAGH CASE
The Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) changed the landscape of alimony and child support in Massachusetts in the seminal case of Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398 (2022) (“Cavanagh”). In its massive scope contained in the written opinion, the SJC issued one of its lengthiest family law decisions to date, and introduced a new method family court judges must apply when calculating alimony and child support. In so ruling, the Court provided guidance about what types of income must be included and excluded in child support calculations.
The crux of the SJC’s decision was that is was an abuse of discretion for a trial judge to calculate child support first so as to deny alimony based on the trial judge’s understanding that, under G.L. c. 208, § 53(c)(2), the same income relied on to calculate child support cannot be used also to calculate alimony.
Many within the family law practice consider the Cavanagh decision a radical decision, and many judges and lawyers are confused about how to proceed forward on the issues and how to apply the new rules.
CAVANAGH’S NEW CALCULTIONS FOR ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT: SQUEEZING EVERY NICKEL OU OF THOSE WHO ARE JUDGED TO PAY ALIMONY
Prior to Cavanagh, many family law judges and practitioners believed that child support should be calculated before alimony, and alimony was to be awarded only if there was excess income not used in the child support calculation.
The Cavanagh Court rejected that approach, and held that “[w]here, as here, a judge chooses to calculate the child support and then denies alimony on the basis that § 53(c)(2) prevents the use of the payor’s income to calculate alimony, the judge has abused her discretion because she has failed to do the fact-specific analysis of the family’s circumstances required by § 53(a).” Id. at 409. The SJC then introduced a new three-step method that must be followed in cases in which both alimony and child support are involved. The method is as follows:
(1) Calculate alimony first, in light of the statutory factors enumerated in § 53(a) and the principle that, with the exception of reimbursement alimony, the amount of alimony should be determined with reference to the recipient spouse’s need for support to allow the spouse to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed prior to the termination of the parties’ marriage. Then calculate child support using the parties’ postalimony incomes.
(2) Calculate child support first. Then calculate alimony, considering, to the extent possible, the statutory factors enumerated in § 53(a). We acknowledge that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the calculation of child support first will preclude any alimony being calculated in this step.
(3) Compare the base award and tax consequences of the order that would result from the calculations in step (1) with those of the order that would result from the calculations in step (2), above. The judge should then fashion an order which would be the most equitable for the family before the court, considering the mandatory statutory factors set forth in G. L. c. 208, § 53(a), and the public policy that children be supported as completely as possible by their parents’ resources, G. L. c. 208, § 28, and then fashion the order such that it reflects, or alternatively is responsive to, those considerations. Where the judge chooses to issue an order pursuant to the calculations in step (2) or otherwise that does not include any award of alimony, the judge must articulate why such an order is warranted in light of the statutory factors set forth in § 53(a).[2]
The SJC did not provide any guidance regarding how judges are to determine which order will be “the most equitable” under this new method. Moreover, Step 3 of the new method suggests that litigants will need to retain tax experts to calculate and then present to the court the tax consequences of the different potential alimony and child support orders, and the parties’ expected net after-tax incomes under both scenarios. Further, as a matter of public policy, if the parties cannot afford or otherwise fail to hire the appropriate tax experts, support awards calculated using the first test may be so high that they discourage a payor’s continued employment or future employment because of the harshness of the calculations.
Types of Income to be Included in Child Support Calculations
The Cavanagh Court considered the following different types of income, and determined whether they should be included in calculating child support:
• Interest and dividends: Again referencing the CSG, the SJC explained that interest and dividends are to be included within income without qualification; that is, regardless of whether they are a regular source of income. Accordingly, the trial judge erred by excluding income from the father’s savings and 401k plan to the extent such income included interest and dividends.
• Capital gains: Noting that the CSG state that capital gains need only be treated as a regular source of income where they relate to “real and personal property transactions,” the SJC clarified that they should otherwise be included in income even when not regular. The trial judge therefore erred by excluding capital gains on the father’s savings and 401k plan to the extent they included capital gains on transactions other than those related to real and personal property.
• Income from second job: Insofar as the parties’ separation agreement provided that income from the father’s second job “shall not be utilized to calculate any future support obligations, whether child support or alimony,” the SJC held that this provision was void because “[p]arents may not bargain away the rights of their children to support.” at 422 (internal citation omitted). It remained within the trial judge’s discretion to consider this income when calculating child support.
• Employer contributions to retirement accounts: In an issue of first impression in the Commonwealth, the SJC held that employer contributions to retirement accounts constitute income for purposes of calculating child support. The SJC found persuasive the reasoning of a Pennsylvania court, which held, “if we were to determine that an employer’s matching contributions are not income, it would be possible for an employee to enter into an agreement with his employer to take less wages in exchange for a heightened matching contribution. This would effectively permit an employee to shield his income in an effort to reduce his child support obligation.” Id. at 424 (internal citation omitted). The trial judge, therefore, did not abuse her discretion in including these contributions in the father’s income. Notably, the SJC did not explain how it is equitable to order a payor to pay support in present dollars on income that the payor cannot access without penalty until the payor reaches retirement age.
• Employer contributions to health savings accounts: The SJC held that because employer contributions to health savings accounts (“HSAs”) are considered part of an employee’s compensation package, they properly constitute income for purposes of calculating child support. Again, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in including these contributions in the father’s income.
In a recent decision, the Appeals Court has already relied on the Cavanagh decision for the proposition that “principles restricting consideration of income derived from assets received in divorce for purposes of alimony have ‘no bearing’ on consideration of such income for purposes of child support.” Duval v. Duval, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 752, 763 (2022) (holding that on remand the trial court was free to consider husband’s dividend income from his business interest in connection with the support of the children).
SUMMING UP CAVANAGH
Three years after the decision it remains to be seen how closely trial judges and the family law bar will analyze and apply the Cavanagh methodology for calculating alimony and child support. More guidance from the SJC and the Appeals Court will be needed as to how to determine which approach to support is “most equitable,” and how to deal with the tax consequences of different awards. As every lawyer and judge knows, judges have broad discretion in applying the law. A calculation in one court might not be the same in another family court in Massachusetts, due to the analysis by the sitting judge. Until such guidance is received, Cavanagh remains open ended and is subject to constant squabbles among lawyers and judges alike.
MORE DIESEL FUEL ON THE FIRE: ONE’S LIFESTYLE AND SAVINGS: ENTER OPENSHAW
To confuse the delicate balance of alimony and the changing dynamics since Cavanagh even more, the SJC shed new light on what it means to "live" a certain lifestyle as a married couple and how those habits should be reflected in post-divorce alimony. The case, Openshaw v. Openshaw (2024), revolved around a couple who, during their marriage, didn't just focus on living well but also on saving wisely. When their marriage came to an end, the question arose: should their habit of saving be considered part of their marital lifestyle for the purposes of determining the appropriate amount of alimony?
The court's answer was a resounding YES. In essence, the court argued that saving isn't just a financial strategy; it's a way of life. For the Openshaws, who enjoyed a generous annual income far exceeding their living expenses, setting money aside wasn't merely about preparing for a rainy day. It was a consistent part of their lifestyle.
The Openshaw decision allows for savings to be considered a part of an alimony recipient’s needs if: (1) there is a clear record and pattern of saving by the parties during their marriage; and (2) there is sufficient income post-divorce to allow both parties to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. Although the tension between “need” versus “ability to pay” is nothing new with regards to alimony in Massachusetts, the now clear precedent of including savings in a recipient’s “need” will certainly change the way that courts and litigants will approach alimony cases for high wage earners going forward.
The implications of this are significant. When determining the need for support, courts can look beyond current spending habits to consider the entire scope of how a couple lives. This includes saving for the future. This means that in divorces where both parties have the financial means, both can be expected to maintain not just the living standards they enjoyed while married but also the saving habits that were part of their marital lifestyle.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The information provided in this blog is to educate the lay person what to expect in alimony cases. The issues continue to be open ended and the broad discretion of the judges has courts ruling differently on the same issues.
Give us a call at Bentley Law Group and consult with a family law expert and get the representation you deserve.
The Compass to Guardianships and Conservatorships in Massachusetts In Massachusetts, guardians have to be appointed by the Probate and Family Court. You don't become a guardian automatically just because you are the parent of an incapacitated adult. A temporary guardian may be appointed if it’s likely that there will be immediate, considerable harm to the health, safety, or well being of the person. The court will not appoint you as a guardian if : 1. You’re currently being investigated. 2. You have pending charges for committing an assault and battery that seriously injured the incapacitated person. 3. You’re currently being investigated for neglecting the incapacitated person. A guardianship is not the same as a conservatorship. Guardianships and conservatorships are filed through separate processes. Anyone who is interested in the incapacitated person's well being can file a Petition for Guardianship. See File for guardianship of an incapacitated person for more information. Who is considered an incapacitated person ? A guardian may be appointed for: 1. An incapacitated person — An incapacitated person is someone who does not have the ability to make their own decisions. An incapacitated person is defined as someone who for reasons other than advanced age or minority has a clinically diagnosed condition that results in an inability to receive and evaluate information or to make or communicate decisions to such an extent that the individual lacks the ability to meet essential requirements for physical health, safety, or self-care, even with appropriate technological assistance. 2. An intellectually disabled person — An intellectually disabled person is someone who has intellectual functioning that is significantly below average, usually defined as an IQ of less than 70. They also have limitations in 2 or more adaptive skills, such as communication, self-care, social skills, health, and safety. 3. A person with mental illness — Mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person's thoughts, feelings, mood, ability to relate to others, and daily functions. Mental illness often makes it more difficult to cope with ordinary day to day tasks. People suffering from a mental illness can get help with their symptoms by participating in a treatment plan. 4. Special circumstances — A guardian may also be necessary in these other circumstances, such as: 1. If an elderly parent has a degenerative health condition and can't consent to treatment or being placed in a nursing facility 2. If a person has had a traumatic brain injury 3. If a child with a disability is turning 18 What is a Temporary Guardianship A temporary guardian may be appointed if it’s likely that there will be immediate and substantial harm to the incapacitated person’s health, safety, or welfare. The person asking to be named guardian is called the petitioner, and the person believed to be incapacitated is called the respondent. A temporary guardianship generally lasts for less than 90 days. Temporary guardianship powers may be limited. The court will specifically order the temporary guardian’s responsibilities. A temporary guardian will go back to court to extend the temporary guardianship until the guardianship becomes permanent. To request a temporary guardian, you'll need to file these forms : 1. Temporary Bond, which must be approved by the court 2. Court Activity Record Information (CARI) for the person asking to become a guardian. CARIs include Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI), juvenile records, and information about civil restraining orders. 3. A verified Motion for Appointment of a Temporary Guardian (MPC 320). The motion must include: o The emergency o The risk o What authority is required o Why you’re asking for the period for giving notice to be waived or shortened, if applicable You should also include information about whether the incapacitated person has completed a Health Care Proxy and/or a Durable Power of Attorney with the motion. If an incapacitated person has a Health Care Proxy and a Durable Power of Attorney and no one disagrees about care plans, you might not need a guardianship. §1.2.10 Powers, Duties and Limitations of a Guardian To the extent permitted by the decree, a guardian is charged with making decisions concerning an incapacitated person’s support, care, education, health and welfare. [§5-309 (a)]. A guardian may exercise her authority only as necessitated by the incapacitated person’s mental and adaptive limitations, and, to the extent possible, must encourage participation in decisions and self reliance. [§5-309]. In addition to the reporting and monitoring requirements, the Code sets out various powers, duties and limitations of a guardian for an incapacitated person. A guardian of an incapacitated person shall, inter alia: 1) take custody and establish a place of abode within or outside the Commonwealth; 2) maintain sufficient contacts to know of the person’s capacities, limitations, needs, opportunities, and physical and mental health; 3) take care of personal effects; 4) commence protective proceedings, if necessary; and 5) apply available money to current needs. [§5-209 (b)]. A guardian of an incapacitated person may: 1) apply for and receive financial support for the incapacitated person; 2) in general, consent to usual and customary medical or other professional care or treatment; and 3) utilize the services of agencies and individuals to provide necessary and desirable social and protective services. [§5-209 (c)]. A guardian may not revoke a health care proxy without court order. [§5-309 (e)]. Moreover, if a health care proxy is in place, absent court order, a health-care decision of the agent takes precedence over that of a guardian. [§5-309 (e)]. A guardian may not admit or commit an incapacitated person to a mental health facility. [§5-309 (f)]. Guardians will need to proceed in the District Courts under G.L. c. 213 for such a commitment. [MA Comment, §5-306A]. A guardian may not admit an incapacitated person to a nursing facility except upon a specific finding by the court that such admission is in the incapacitated person’s best interest. [§5-309 (g)]. The Role of Different Conservatorships in Massachusetts Conservatorships are typically established for individuals who are incapacitated due to coma, advanced Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, or other serious illnesses or disabilities that prevent them from managing their estate. In other words, if an individual is unable to make sound decisions regarding their finances due to their physical or mental condition, a conservatorship may be established to protect their interests. While the backdrop of a conservatorship’s appointment might be due to an adult being sick, the conservator cannot make medical decisions for that individual. This is one of the major differences between a guardian and conservator. The use of conservatorships can be helpful in situations where the incapacitated individual has no other means of support or is vulnerable to exploitation. By appointing a conservator, the court can ensure that the individual’s assets are managed responsibly. However, it’s essential to note that conservatorships can also be controversial, and some individuals may view them as a loss of autonomy and independence. Therefore, it’s crucial to evaluate each case carefully and ensure that conservatorships are only established when necessary and appropriate. Establishing a conservatorship is a sensitive issue In legal terms, a conservatorship refers to a process where a person seeks to be appointed by the court as the conservator or caretaker for someone else referred to as the “protected person.” The conservator is granted the authority to take charge of the financial decisions relating to the protected person. However, in Massachusetts, the court starts from the premise that all adults can make financial decisions, making this process a sensitive matter. Due to the complicated nature of this process, the court may take a few weeks or months before the petition is approved. Financial Conservatorships Financial Conservatorships are, as the name suggests, created to help manage someone’s finances, usually a loved one. Often, these conservatorships are established by adult children to care for aging parents who begin showing signs of Alzheimer’s or other mentally debilitating symptoms. Conservators can be paid for their services. There’s also court supervision involved during the conservatorship. An attorney, like those at our law firm, can help guide conservators through the process of establishing the conservatorship appointment with the court, and with the administration over time in complying with court requirements and reporting. An attorney can also create legal boundaries for any conservatorship agreement, this way any questions of conflict of interests can be put to rest. Emergency Conservatorships. The legal procedure of emergency conservatorship involves the temporary appointment of a conservator, who is tasked with making financial decisions for a protected person who is unable to do so. Even if there is already a petition to establish a financial conservatorship, someone can petition the Probate and Family Law Court to establish a temporary conservatorship. Potential conservators need to state in the petition to the courts why they believe the protected person is in need of a conservatorship. Joint Conservatorships A Joint Conservatorship is a financial conservatorship. However, in a Joint Conservatorship, two conservators are appointed. Joint conservators need to petition the court, as in a more common financial conservatorship. Questions related to the necessity of the conservatorship, the harm prevention, and the actions that the conservators will take, must still be answered. In Massachusetts there’s also the possibility of establishing a Sole Conservatorship. The Role of Different Conservatorships in Massachusetts Conservatorships are typically established for individuals who are incapacitated due to coma, advanced Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, or other serious illnesses or disabilities that prevent them from managing their estate. In other words, if an individual is unable to make sound decisions regarding their finances due to their physical or mental condition, a conservatorship may be established to protect their interests. While the backdrop of a conservatorship’s appointment might be due to an adult being sick, the conservator cannot make medical decisions for that individual. This is one of the major differences between a guardian and conservator. The use of conservatorships can be helpful in situations where the incapacitated individual has no other means of support or is vulnerable to exploitation. By appointing a conservator, the court can ensure that the individual’s assets are managed responsibly. However, it’s essential to note that conservatorships can also be controversial, and some individuals may view them as a loss of autonomy and independence. Therefore, it’s crucial to evaluate each case carefully and ensure that conservatorships are only established when necessary and appropriate. Establishing a conservatorship is a sensitive issue In legal terms, a conservatorship refers to a process where a person seeks to be appointed by the court as the conservator or caretaker for someone else referred to as the “protected person.” The conservator is granted the authority to take charge of the financial decisions relating to the protected person. However, in Massachusetts, the court starts from the premise that all adults can make financial decisions, making this process a sensitive matter. Due to the complicated nature of this process, the court may take a few weeks or months before the petition is approved. Financial Conservatorships Financial Conservatorships are, as the name suggests, created to help manage someone’s finances, usually a loved one. Often, these conservatorships are established by adult children to care for aging parents who begin showing signs of Alzheimer’s or other mentally debilitating symptoms. Conservators can be paid for their services. There’s also court supervision involved during the conservatorship. An attorney, like those at our law firm, can help guide conservators through the process of establishing the conservatorship appointment with the court, and with the administration over time in complying with court requirements and reporting. An attorney can also create legal boundaries for any conservatorship agreement, this way any questions of conflict of interests can be put to rest. Emergency Conservatorships The legal procedure of emergency conservatorship involves the temporary appointment of a conservator, who is tasked with making financial decisions for a protected person who is unable to do so. Even if there is already a petition to establish a financial conservatorship, someone can petition the Probate and Family Law Court to establish a temporary conservatorship. Potential conservators need to state in the petition to the courts why they believe the protected person is in need of a conservatorship. Joint Conservatorships A Joint Conservatorship is a financial conservatorship. However, in a Joint Conservatorship, two conservators are appointed. Joint conservators need to petition the court, as in a more common financial conservatorship. Questions related to the necessity of the conservatorship, the harm prevention, and the actions that the conservators will take, must still be answered. In Massachusetts there’s also the possibility of establishing a Sole Conservatorship. Court Required Duties as a Conservator In order for your conservatorship appointment to be finalized, the court must approve both a decree and a bond. Once approved, you are responsible to the court and to the Protected Person as follows: GENERAL DUTY As a Conservator, you are a fiduciary responsible for managing the property of the Protected Person. Consequently, you must observe the standards of care applicable to trustees. You may exercise the authority only as authorized by the court’s decree. As a Conservator, you also have an obligation to the Protected Person. To the extent possible, this obligation involves encouraging the Protected Person to participate in decisions, to act on their own behalf, and to regain the ability to manage their estate and business affairs. INVENTORY You must file an Inventory (MPC 854 or MPC 854a) within90 days of your temporary and/or permanent appointment. The purpose is to identify the assets of the protected person. See G. L. c. 190B, § 5-417. ANNUALACCOUNT You must file an annual Account (MPC 853 or MPC 853a) for allowance. The annual Account must be filed with a Petition for Allowance (MPC 857). Your account is due each year within 60 days of the anniversary date of your appointment. Your account must be personally presented to the court, unless otherwise court ordered. The purpose is to present an accounting of your financial transactions and current status of the conservatorship estate during the accounting period. See G. L. c. 190B, § 5-418. FINAL ACCOUNT You must file a final Account (MPC 853 or MPC 853a) for allowance when you resign, are removed or when the protected person dies or the conservatorship terminates. The final Account must be filed with a Petition for Order of Complete Settlement (MPC 860). Your final account is due within 60 days of the terminating event. The purpose is to present an accounting of all financial transactions and the final status of the conservatorship estate during the accounting period. See G. L. c. 190B, § 5-418 FINANCIAL PLAN You must file a Conservator’s Financial Plan (MPC 861) ONLYif court ordered. The financial plan must be filed by the date ordered by the court, or if no date is specified, within 60 days of the date of the court order. See G. L. c. 190B, § 5-416(c). CHANGE AUTHORITY You must file a Petition to Expand/Modify/Limit Powers (MPC 230) if you need to change your statutory authority under the law for any reason. For more details, see G. L. c. 190B, §§5-407, 5-423, 5-424, 5-425. CHANGEOF ADDRESS . You must notify the court if the address of you or the protected person changes. See G. L. c. 190B, § 5-412.â–¡ DEATH OF PROTECTED PERSON You must notify the court if the protected person dies. A copy of the death certificate must be filed. A final account of your administration as Conservator is required. See G.L. c. 190B, § 5-429.â–¡ RESIGNATIONAS CONSERVATOR You must file a Petition for Resignation (MPC 202) if you no longer wish to serve as a conservator. See G. L. c. 190B, § 5-429. The purpose is to determine if a successor is necessary. TERMINATION OF CONSERVATORSHIP You must file a Petition for Termination (MPC 203) if the protected person no longer requires conservatorship. See G. L. c. 190B, § 5-419. The purpose is to end the administration and transfer title to estate assets back to the formerly protected person. At Bentley Law Group we navigate you through the choppy waters of Guardianship and Conservatorship with caring practitioners who know the process from our successful representation for clients in these situations. Call the professionals today and get your loved ones protected.
Notice To Quit
Summary Process
DUI First Offense and Understanding 24 D
Equitable Division of Marital Assets in Massachusetts
Navigating the Choppy Waters of Legal and Physical Custody In Massachusetts
DEMYSTIFYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MASSACHUSETTS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 56)
Appeals
Settling a difficult Case and Appeals
Share On: