Mass. Gen. Laws » Part II Title III Chapter 208
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53 (2026)

Determination of form, amount and duration of alimony; maximum amount; income calculation; deviations; concurrent child support orders

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 53. (a) In determining the appropriate form of alimony and in setting the amount and duration of support, a court shall consider: the length of the marriage; age of the parties; health of the parties; income, employment and employability of both parties, including employability through reasonable diligence and additional training, if necessary; economic and non-economic contribution of both parties to the marriage; marital lifestyle; ability of each party to maintain the marital lifestyle; lost economic opportunity as a result of the marriage; and such other factors as the court considers relevant and material.

(b) Except for reimbursement alimony or circumstances warranting deviation for other forms of alimony, the amount of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient's need or 30 to 35 per cent of the difference between the parties' gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued. Subject to subsection (c), income shall be defined as set forth in the Massachusetts child support guidelines.

(c) When issuing an order for alimony, the court shall exclude from its income calculation:

(1) capital gains income and dividend and interest income which derive from assets equitably divided between the parties under section 34; and

(2) gross income which the court has already considered for setting a child support order.

(d) Nothing in this section shall limit the court's discretion to cast a presumptive child support order under the child support guidelines in terms of unallocated or undifferentiated alimony and child support.

(e) In setting an initial alimony order, or in modifying an existing order, the court may deviate from duration and amount limits for general term alimony and rehabilitative alimony upon written findings that deviation is necessary. Grounds for deviation may include:

(1) advanced age; chronic illness; or unusual health circumstances of either party;

(2) tax considerations applicable to the parties;

(3) whether the payor spouse is providing health insurance and the cost of health insurance for the recipient spouse;

(4) whether the payor spouse has been ordered to secure life insurance for the benefit of the recipient spouse and the cost of such insurance;

(5) sources and amounts of unearned income, including capital gains, interest and dividends, annuity and investment income from assets that were not allocated in the parties divorce;

(6) significant premarital cohabitation that included economic partnership or marital separation of significant duration, each of which the court may consider in determining the length of the marriage;

(7) a party's inability to provide for that party's own support by reason of physical or mental abuse by the payor;

(8) a party's inability to provide for that party's own support by reason of that party's deficiency of property, maintenance or employment opportunity; and

(9) upon written findings, any other factor that the court deems relevant and material.

(f) In determining the incomes of parties with respect to the issue of alimony, the court may attribute income to a party who is unemployed or underemployed.

(g) If a court orders alimony concurrent with or subsequent to a child support order, the combined duration of alimony and child support shall not exceed the longer of: (i) the alimony or child support duration available at the time of divorce; or (ii) rehabilitative alimony beginning upon the termination of child support.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: Zaleski v. Zaleski, 13 N.E.3d 967 (Mass. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Zaleski v. Zaleski, 13 N.E.3d 967 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 13× “9 Both require that a judge consider the factors set forth in G. L. c. 208, § 53, in deciding the appropriate form of alimony: “the length of the marriage; age of the parties; health of the *234 parties; income, employment and employability of both parties, including…”
Duff-Kareores v. Kareores, 52 N.E.3d 115 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 6× “In making this determination, the judge considered the required factors under G. L. c. 208, § 53 (a), including “the length of the marriage; age of the parties; health of the parties; income, employment and *532 employability of the parties .”
Hassey v. Hassey, 11 N.E.3d 661 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 8× “First is the statutory formula providing that “the amount of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or [thirty] to [thirty-five] per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued,” G. L. c. 208, §…”
Snow v. Snow, 68 N.E.3d 1138 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 7× “In determining the amount of general term alimony, the judge considered the factors set forth in G. L. c. 208, § 53 (a), 4 and determined that alimony should be approximately thirty-five per cent of the difference between the husband’s and wife’s weekly incomes.”
Vedensky v. Vedensky, 22 N.E.3d 951 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 5× “She then subtracts “assumed 30% taxes” from that amount, based on a chalk prepared by her. Subject to limited exclusions not applicable here, income for purposes of alimony is calculated on the basis of gross income, that is, pretax income.”
Smith v. Smith, 100 N.E.3d 781 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “That Act included a new section, G. L. c. 208, § 53, which made explicit the considerations for setting alimony.”
LISA M. JONES v. ANDREW D. JONES (& a Consol. case )., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 673 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “He considered every factor under G. L. c. 208, § 53 (e). The factual findings were detailed and precise and amply supported the judge's determination that the wife did not show that a deviation was in the interest of justice.”
George v. George, 63 N.E.3d 380 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 208, § 53 (e) (“In setting an initial alimony order, or in modifying an existing order, the court may deviate from duration and amount limits for general term alimony .”
Candace M. Duval v. Shane a. Duval., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 752 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 4× “See G. L. c. 208, § 53 (d) ("Nothing in this section shall limit the court's discretion to cast a presumptive child support order under the child support guidelines in terms of unallocated or undifferentiated alimony and child support"); Macri v.”
Holmes v. Holmes, 6 N.E.3d 1062 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 2× “” G. L. c. 208, § 53 (a). A judge in her discretion, applying these factors, may determine that the appropriate duration of alimony is less than the presumptive maximum without a written finding that deviation from the presumptive maximum is required in the interests of justice.”
Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl, 55 N.E.3d 933 (Mass. 2016). “” Because we conclude that the 2004 trust should not have been included in the divisible marital estate, it may be appropriate on remand for the judge and the parties to revisit whether alimony is now appropriate, and, if so, in what amount, on the basis of the factors the judge…”
Jane E. Cunningham v. Jerry E. Thomas., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 135 (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 4× “See G. L. c. 208, § 53 (b) ("income [for purposes of calculating alimony] shall be defined as set forth in the Massachusetts child support guidelines"); Child Support Guidelines § I(A)(6) (June 2018) ("income" for purposes of calculating child support includes "bonuses").”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(6) — 2 cases
Hassey v. Hassey, 11 N.E.3d 661 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “First is the statutory formula providing that “the amount of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or [thirty] to [thirty-five] per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued,” G. L. c. 208, §…”
Vedensky v. Vedensky, 22 N.E.3d 951 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “She then subtracts “assumed 30% taxes” from that amount, based on a chalk prepared by her. Subject to limited exclusions not applicable here, income for purposes of alimony is calculated on the basis of gross income, that is, pretax income.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(a) — 4 cases
Vedensky v. Vedensky, 22 N.E.3d 951 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “She then subtracts “assumed 30% taxes” from that amount, based on a chalk prepared by her. Subject to limited exclusions not applicable here, income for purposes of alimony is calculated on the basis of gross income, that is, pretax income.”
Hassey v. Hassey, 11 N.E.3d 661 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “First is the statutory formula providing that “the amount of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or [thirty] to [thirty-five] per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued,” G. L. c. 208, §…”
Emery v. Sturtevant (Mass. App. Ct. 2017).
Commonwealth v. Agogo (Mass. App. Ct. 2018).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(b) — 1 case
Emery v. Sturtevant (Mass. App. Ct. 2017).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(c) — 1 case
Vedensky v. Vedensky, 22 N.E.3d 951 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “She then subtracts “assumed 30% taxes” from that amount, based on a chalk prepared by her. Subject to limited exclusions not applicable here, income for purposes of alimony is calculated on the basis of gross income, that is, pretax income.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(c)(1) — 1 case
Ludwig v. Lamee-Ludwig (Mass. App. Ct. 2017).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(e) — 1 case
Hassey v. Hassey, 11 N.E.3d 661 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “First is the statutory formula providing that “the amount of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or [thirty] to [thirty-five] per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued,” G. L. c. 208, §…”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(e)(9) — 1 case
Hassey v. Hassey, 11 N.E.3d 661 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “First is the statutory formula providing that “the amount of alimony should generally not exceed the recipient’s need or [thirty] to [thirty-five] per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes established at the time of the order being issued,” G. L. c. 208, §…”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(f) — 1 case
Emery v. Sturtevant (Mass. App. Ct. 2017).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 53(h) — 1 case
Vedensky v. Vedensky, 22 N.E.3d 951 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “She then subtracts “assumed 30% taxes” from that amount, based on a chalk prepared by her. Subject to limited exclusions not applicable here, income for purposes of alimony is calculated on the basis of gross income, that is, pretax income.”
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.