ALIMONY REFORM ACT Jan 30,2015
MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT
The court wrote in Chin v Meriott that " the Legislature intended these provisions to apply prospectively is reflected in the language of several uncodified provisions of the alimony reform act, which we consider together with the codified provisions at issue here."
The court wrote in Doktor v Doktor that "the Legislature intended the retirement provision to have prospective application;consequently, it is not applicable to modification of the alimony judgment in this case. Chin v. Merriot, supra."
The court wrote in Rodman v Rodman that "General Lawsc. 208, � 49 (f), does not apply retroactively to alimony orders in divorce judgments that entered before March 1, 2012."