Massachusetts SJC Declines to Extend Social Host Liquor Liability

On February 21, 2012, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed its long-held position that civil liquor liability attaches to a social host only where the host either serves alcohol or exercises effective control over the supply of alcohol.

In Juliano v. Simpson, decided on February 21, 2012, the Court reviewed a liquor liability case where the parent was out of the house and the social host was his 19 year old daughter who was in sole control of the premises. The daughter invited several friends over and one of them brought alcohol to the house. During the course of the evening, the guest who provided the alcohol drank to excess and left the party to drive another underage guest home. A short while later, their automobile struck a utility pole. The underage guest and her parents sued the absent parent and his 19 year-old daughter for her personal injuries.

The Court first recognized that common-law tort liability may be imposed on social hosts in 1986. In the decisions since then, the Court has only found liability where a host either serves alcohol to guests or effectively controls the supply of alcohol, and has declined to extend liability even to cases where parents knew or reasonably should have known that alcoholic beverages would be available to their underage guests.

The Juliano Court rejected the argument that social hosts, “who neither provided alcoholic beverages nor made them available, owed a duty to travelers on the highways to supervise their premises when they knew or reasonably should have known that drinking was taking place on the premises.” In citing as pivotal the fact that the underage guests brought their own alcohol, the Court concluded that any “proposed expansion of social host liability under our common law continues to be inadvisable”. Currently, only nine States impose social host liability for injury to third parties where a host merely provides a location for underage drinking.

For any parent who thinks that it is okay to hold BYOB parties for underage guests, it should be remembered that the Juliano Court only dealt with the subject of civil liability. The Massachusetts Legislature, however, has made that same conduct a punishable crime. M.G.L. c. 138, § 34 prohibits the “ furnish[ing]” of alcohol to a person under the age of twenty-one, and defines furnishing as “knowingly or intentionally supply[ing], giv[ing], or provid[ing] to or allow[ing] a person … to possess alcoholic beverages on premises or property owned or controlled by the person charged.” What is the penalty? A fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year.

- For more information on this topic, see http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x1353884657/High-court-Party-hosts-not-liable-for-underage-BYOB-drinking

Posted in News and Notes, Personal Injury | Tagged , | Leave a comment

UPDATE: Alimonyformula.com and Massalimonyformula.com now Calculate Alimony Under the New Massachusetts Statute

Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. and Kelsey & Trask, P.C. invite you to visit the redesigned alimonyformula.com, which includes a simplified interface and calculates maximum weekly alimony under the recently enacted Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act of 2011.

In addition, Kelsey & Trask, P.C., our long-time collaborators at alimonyformula.com, have rolled out a fantastic new website providing stand-alone web-tools for calculating alimony under the new Massachusetts alimony statute at massalimonyformula.com.  Visit massalimonyformula.com to determine duration and the maximum “range” of alimony available under the new statute’s framework.

Both alimonyformula.com and massalimonyformula.com provide printable worksheet forms that can be filled out online and submitted directly to the Court in your alimony case, as well as a range of reference materials.  In addition, check out K&T’s masschildsupportformula.com for superior Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines calculator, which includes a shared/joint physical custody child support calculation tool.

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in Divorce | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Child Support Obligations Never Go Away in Massachusetts

Recently, we have been getting calls from across the World Wide Web from people with grown children who are now being sued for child support by their state departments of revenue (“DOR”) – a decade or more after the emancipation of their children – and in some instances, for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Worse yet, they claim they to have fully paid their child support obligations long ago. Whether or not these cases are defensible depends upon the individual circumstances and the statutes of limitation in each state. It is worth noting, however, that a good number of states – like Massachusetts – have no statute of limitations. In other words, the Massachusetts DOR can come after the parent obligated to pay child support at any time in the future, regardless of the date of emancipation of the child. Other states have 20 year (and shorter) statutes of limitations for the collection of child support after the date of the child’s emancipation. If you get one of these delinquency notices out of the blue from the DOR of your state or some other state alleging that you owe the custodial parent child support for your grown children, you need to speak with a lawyer immediately because your window to take steps to defend yourself is short. The notices generally state that if the noncustodial parent does not pay the debt within thirty days or file a request for an administrative review, the DOR can use a range of remedies to collect the debt, including but not limited to bank account levies, interception of your tax refund or even suspension of your driver’s license. The non-custodial parent has to exhaust the administrative review process in order to get the matter reviewed judicially, so that notice of delinquency triggers the only remedy that the non-custodial parent will get. Ignore it at your peril.

If you are a non-custodial parent paying a child support order now, there is a lesson in these cases for you: Keep evidence of your child support payments, whether or not you pay your child support obligation to the DOR or directly to the custodial parent. And because many banks will only keep check images for seven years (not to mention that banks have come and gone over the years) you have to rely upon yourself and keep cancelled child support checks forever – a task made easier today with digitized scanning technology. And lastly, NEVER pay your child support obligation in cash.

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in Divorce | Tagged | Leave a comment

New Article: Determining Self-Employment Income for Child Support Purposes in Massachusetts

I am pleased to link to an Article I published in the June 2011 edition of the Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy entitled Determining Self-Employment Income for Child Support Purposes: the Massachusetts View Compared with the National View.  The article focuses on the thorny problem of calculating “income” for child support purposes in cases involving self-employed parents who operate a business over which the parent exerts financial control.

Much of the article explores the differences and similarities between “business income”, as defined by federal tax law, and “self-employment income”, as defined by child support guidelines in Massachusetts and other states.  Much of the impetus behind this “compare and contrast” approach is practical. Determining a business owner’s “income” for child support purposes almost always begins with an examination of the business’s state and federal tax returns. The challenge for attorneys, parties, and judges often lies in determining which sections of the business’s tax returns can be applied to the child support analysis – and which sections must be carefully scrutinized or rejected altogether when analyzing the return from the child support perspective.

How does “business income” on a tax return differ from “self-employment income” on a financial statement filed in a child support case?  Which tax deductible business expenses are most likely to be abused and manipulated by a self-employed parent?  When can a business expense be legitimately deductible under the tax code but countable as “income” under child support law?  The Article explores the legal underpinnings of these and related questions, identifies and pinpoints the prevailing law and national trends, and acknowledges the ambiguities and approaches taken among the states.

Feedback and comments are welcome.

Jason V. Owens

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in Divorce | Leave a comment

HEY, THAT’S MY TREE!

I’m not a big fan of raking leaves, but I do like trees. One large tree in my back yard provided me with a great place to hang my kids’ favorite swing. I know a few people who have commemorated special occasions like the birth of a child by planting a tree in their yard. What happens, though, when someone cuts down a tree on your property without your permission? Surprisingly, this happens quite a bit. Sometimes the tree blocks your neighbor’s view of the ocean, as occurred in one well known Massachusetts court case, or maybe a contractor doesn’t bother to look at the property line before it starts clearing out an area. Whatever the reason, the owner of the tree that was wrongfully cut down has a cause of action for compensatory damages under Massachusetts law against those who cut it down.

Compensatory damages are monetary damages intended to compensate a victim for his/her loss, but how do you compensate for a tree? Fortunately, the law helps us figure that out. If, for example, a ten year old twenty foot high oak tree was wrongfully cut down on your property, then the measure of your damages can be the cost to restore a ten year old twenty foot high oak tree back on your property. Ten year old twenty foot high oak trees are not regularly sold, but there are experts we utilize who can calculate this figure. The bad news for the person or company who wrongfully cut down your tree is that this restoration cost tends to be very expensive. The worse news for the person or company who wrongfully cut down your tree is the law calls for a trebling of the restoration cost damages for situations when the tree cutting was willful and knowing. Thus, a property owner may be entitled to receive up to three times the cost of restoring the lost tree, a hefty sum.

Did someone cut down a tree on your property? Come in to Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for a free one hour consultation to go over your rights so you can decide whether you want to pursue your claim.

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in Real Estate | Tagged , | Leave a comment

More on www.AlimonyFormula.com and the Proposed Massachusetts Alimony Reform Bill

For those interested, here is a little additional background on Jim Lynch’s post on the connection between the alimony reform bill now pending in Massachusetts and our affiliate website, www.alimonyformula.com.

In 2009, the Joint Mass/Boston Bar Association Alimony Task Force issued a report that recommended Massachusetts adopt a structured, statutory approach to alimony based on measurable criteria such as the length of the marriage and the respective gross incomes of the divorcing parties. Following the release of the Joint Task Force’s recommendations, the mad scientists at Stevenson & Lynch’s affiliate website, www.alimonyformula.com, generated a mathematical formula using the factors articulated in the Task Force’s approach. This formula, which has been featured on alimonyformula.com since 2008 under the heading “MBA-BBA Joint Task Force“, permits visitors to calculate estimated weekly alimony using the Task Force recommendations.

A comparison of the 2009 Task Force Report, the “MBA-BBA Joint Task Force” formula featured on alimonyformula.com, and the language of the proposed bill before the legislature reveals that the majority of the Task Force recommendations used in the “MBA-BBA Joint Task Force” calculation on alimonyformula.com are likewise featured in the proposed bill.  While it is important to note that the wizards at alimonyformula.com will not update the calculation until and unless a final bill is approved, in the meantime, this should not stop visitors from getting a sneak preview of how the new law is likely to work by checking out the “MBA-BBA Joint Task Force” calculation on alimonyformula.com.

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in Divorce | Leave a comment

Massachusetts Legislature Close to Adopting Alimony Structure Featured on www.AlimonyFormula.com

The Massachusetts Legislature is now considering legislation that would significantly change the way that divorce courts approach the process of awarding alimony.   This new approach to alimony proposed by its sponsors is among those already featured on www.alimonyformula.com

In their present form, the Massachusetts alimony laws give judges limited discretion to set a termination date on alimony payments without a significant change in the circumstances of the parties.  Ambiguities in the present laws often lead to inconsistencies in how alimony orders are crafted from judge to judge. 

 The Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act of 2011, if adopted, would:

  • Create separate and clearly defined alimony categories;
  • Set limits on duration of alimony orders;
  • Allow for the termination of alimony at retirement;
  • Allow judges to change alimony orders when ex-spouses cohabitate with new partners;
  • Create new factors for judges to consider in creating alimony orders; and
  • Allow judges to exercise more discretion in alimony cases based upon individual circumstances.

 The legislation pending before the Massachusetts legislature is largely based on the Report issued by the Joint MBA/BBA Alimony Task Force, which included the MBA-BBA Alimony Formula now featured on our affiliate website, www.alimonyformula.com.  While a final bill may include some adjustments from the Task Force Report, visit www.alimonyformula.com to get a sneak peak at how the new bill could affect your alimony case by inputting the gross annual income of you and your spouse.

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in Divorce | 2 Comments

Stevenson & Lynch: South Shore Attorneys Across the World Wide Web

While our revamped and redesigned website at www.stevensonlynch.com may be the flagship of S&L’s presence on the world wide web, it is far from the only place to find S&L online these days.  For instant updates on new posts to S&L’s News and Articles page, be sure to add our company page on Facebook.  And don’t forget to follow the popular new SouthShoreLaw feed on Twitter, where S&L’s Walter Galas provides real-time links to news, stories and blog posts on S&L.com, along with his unique observations and musings on the world of law.

Want more details on the background and experience of S&L’s attorneys?  Visit our  LinkedIn.com profiles for Walter, James and Jason, along with our Avvo.com profiles for Walter, James and Jason.

Have an idea for Stevenson & Lynch’s internet presence?  Want to share comments, compliments or criticisms of the website or S&L’s online presence?   Shoot us an email at info (at) stevensonlynch.com (replace “at” with “@”).

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in News and Notes | Leave a comment

Payment of Medical Bills After an Auto Accident

Who pays your medical bills after you’ve been in an automobile accident?  The answer is not as clear as you may think.  Massachusetts residents are required to have health insurance so you might expect your health insurer to pay. If you have been in an auto accident, however, your health insurance carrier does not usually pay for all your treatment and this may be good news for you.

Generally, medical bills are first paid by the auto insurance carrier that provides insurance coverage for the automobile you were riding in during the accident. This coverage is called Personal Injury Protection (“PIP” for short) and it is included in all automobile insurance policies sold in Massachusetts unless the policyholder specifically excludes it.  PIP is a “No-Fault” benefit which means that it is a benefit you are entitled to under the insurance policy regardless of who was at fault in the accident.

PIP is a valuable benefit. It provides coverage worth at least $2,000.00, but up to $8,000.00 in certain circumstances to pay medical bills or, alternatively up to 75% of your lost wages or a combination of the two.  A lawyer from Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. can assist you in maximizing your benefit under PIP.

Not everyone is eligible for PIP coverage. For example, it is not available to people who were riding on a motorcycle at the time of an accident. It also does not provide coverage to people who are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for the same injury.  There are also some other limited circumstances when the insurance company can deny the PIP benefit. You should consult with an attorney at Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. to find out if any such circumstances apply to your case.

Even after the auto insurance company has paid its limit under PIP, you may still be entitled to have additional medical bills paid by your auto insurance company if you purchased optional insurance coverage called Med Pay with your policy.  Med Pay is optional because the vehicle owner does not have to have the coverage, but it is available and he/she may purchase it when purchasing the policy. Med Pay will pay medical bills that result from an automobile accident up to the limit you’ve purchased once PIP is exhausted regardless of who was at fault in the accident.  You should consult with a lawyer at Stevenson & Lynch P.C. soon after an accident to discuss what insurance coverage is available to you and how you can best use these benefits to get your medical expenses and other losses paid as quickly as possible.

Your health insurance policy will pay the medical bills remaining after PIP and Med Pay (if applicable) have been paid up to the limits of coverage.  While it may not seem that it is all that important who pays, it actually is because your health insurance company is given a lien by law  against any future recovery you receive for your injuries.  This means that your health insurance company is entitled to be repaid the money it spent on your care out of the money (whether from settlement or verdict) you receive to compensate you for your injuries. The amount of this lien can be substantial so you need to work with your lawyer to make sure that you maximize your benefits under the auto insurance policy to, in turn, minimize the amount of your own health insurance company’s lien.

Does all of this sound complicated?  That’s because it is complicated.  If you were injured in an automobile accident, why not have the attorneys at Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. help you the process? Call us today to schedule a free, one-hour consultation. 

-W.G.

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in Personal Injury | Leave a comment

Massachusetts Bankruptcy Exemptions

Don’t worry, if you need to file bankruptcy in Massachusetts, you can still keep your 2 cows, 12 sheep, 2 swine and 4 tons of hay. Fortunately, the other assets you can exempt (“protect”) under state law were updated when the amendments to M.G.L. c. 235, section 34 became law on April 7, 2011.  The farm animal exemption, noted above, was not changed.  The changes that were made are quite beneficial to Massachusetts debtors.

Exemptions, legally speaking, are the list of your assets you are allowed to keep in a bankruptcy- i.e. the items that are “exempt” up to a certain value from seizure by your creditors.  Both the state and the Federal government have lists of exemptions with values codified into law. The debtor, upon filing for bankruptcy protection, can choose to utilize either the Federal or the Massachusetts exemptions but not both. The attorneys at Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. will review your assets with you to make certain that you utilize the list which best protects all of your assets.

Fortunately for debtors, the Federal government updates the values on its list yearly. For example, a debtor can protect (“keep”) up to $3,450.00 in equity in a car under the Federal exemptions. Equity is the difference between the value of the vehicle and the amount you still owe on the car loan.  This number increases every year. Most debtors do not have this much equity in their car so this value was generally adequate to keep the car in their hands and away from their creditors. The State of Massachusetts, however, had gone several decades without an update to the values on its list. As a result, the values attached to the Massachusetts exemptions were archaic and used infrequently. Before the statute was amended, a debtor could only protect up to $700.00 in equity in that same car, a value too low to protect most vehicles.  Still, there was times when certain debtors needed to use the Massachusetts exemptions. These debtors, generally, were people with a high amount of equity in their homes and/or significant pensions.  The low values assigned to other assets, however, made choosing the Massachusetts exemptions problematic because it exposed certain assets to creditors.  Thanks to the new statute, this particular problem is now significantly reduced.  Under the new state law, the debtor can now protect up to $7,500.00 (even higher in some cases) in equity in that same car.

Please note that the new Massachusetts law applies to other situations other than bankruptcy, but we limited my discussion here to its impact on bankruptcy only.

Are you having financial difficulties? Is bankruptcy the right option for you? Come in to Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for a free one hour consultation to go over your options so you can decide what is best for you.

The representations on this page have been prepared by Stevenson & Lynch, P.C. for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.

Posted in Bankruptcy | 3 Comments