Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 37 (2026)

Alimony; revision of judgment

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 37. After a judgment for alimony or an annual allowance for the spouse or children, the court may, from time to time, upon the action for modification of either party, revise and alter its judgment relative to the amount of such alimony or annual allowance and the payment thereof, and may make any judgment relative thereto which it might have made in the original action.

The court, provided there is personal jurisdiction over both parties, may modify and alter a foreign judgment, decree, or order of divorce or separate support where the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over both parties upon the entry of such judgment, decree or order.

The court, provided there is personal jurisdiction over both parties to a foreign judgment, decree, or order of divorce for support, where such foreign court had personal jurisdiction over both parties, may modify and alter such foreign judgment, decree, or order only to the extent it is modifiable or alterable under the laws of such foreign jurisdiction; provided, however, that if both parties are domiciliaries of the commonwealth, then the court may modify and alter the foreign judgment in the same manner as it could have had the judgment, order, or decree been issued by the court; and provided further, that the court may not modify or alter the judgment, order or decree of a foreign jurisdiction which had personal jurisdiction over both parties concerning the division or assignment of marital assets or property.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 85 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1926–2025 · leading case: Adams v. Adams, 945 N.E.2d 844 (Mass. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Adams v. Adams, 945 N.E.2d 844 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 4× “See G. L. c. 208, § 37; Drapek, supra at 244 .”

Pierce v. Pierce, 916 N.E.2d 330 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 3× “shall consider the length of the marriage, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for…”

Chin v. Merriot, 23 N.E.3d 929 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 3× “366, 368 (1981); G. L. c. 208, § 37. 11 When parties to a *535 divorce negotiate an agreement for alimony that is “incorporated and merged into [such a] judgment” upon approval by a judge and in accordance with G.”

Gottsegen v. Gottsegen, 492 N.E.2d 1133 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 4× “" G.L.c. 208, § 37 (1984 ed.). Thus, if the supporting spouse shows that, as a result of cohabitation, the recipient spouse's economic circumstances have materially changed, then the court may alter or eliminate alimony.”

DuMont v. Godbey, 415 N.E.2d 188 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 3× “G. L. c. 208, § 37. Brown v. Greenlow, 330 Mass.”

Heins v. Ledis, 664 N.E.2d 10 (Mass. 1996). · cites it 2× “While alimony is modifiable on the showing of a material change in circumstances, see G. L. c. 208, § 37 (1994 ed.), property settlements are not.”

Stansel v. Stansel, 432 N.E.2d 691 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 208, § 37. If the Legislature had intended to limit a power of the Probate Court so firmly grounded in statute and precedent, it would have done so expressly and not merely by implication.”

Krapf v. Krapf, 786 N.E.2d 318 (Mass. 2003). “231A into a modification proceeding under G. L. c. 208, § 37, and then reapportioning the division of marital property contrary to established law.”

Hanify v. Hanify, 526 N.E.2d 1056 (Mass. 1988). · cites it 2× “See G.L.c. 208, § 37 (1986 ed.). [3] In Heacock v.”

Anthony v. Anthony, 486 N.E.2d 773 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “” Jane observes, correctly, that G. L. c. 208, § 37, which authorizes revision of a judgment for alimony or an annual allowance, contemplates the entry of a “judgment” not a “temporary order.”

Cloutier Hay v. Cloutier, 449 N.E.2d 361 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 2× “2 The plaintiff is not seeking a revision of a judgment of alimony because of changes in circumstances pursuant to G. L. c. 208, § 37. She contends simply that modification should be granted because of the failure of the original judgment to provide for property division and…”

Zatsky v. Zatsky, 627 N.E.2d 474 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “For the litigant there is a tactical dilemma in bringing a proceeding under G. L. c. 208, § 37, to modify a judgment on the basis of materially changed circumstances while also challenging the lawfulness of the underlying judgment.”

Show all 85 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.