Divorce may mean retiring is delayed

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that a former spouse may have to keep paying alimony after retiring and could be expected to delay retirement even after turning 65 to come up with the money.

The decision, in the divorce case of former state judge and law firm partner Rudolph F. Pierce, says probate judges weighing a request to lower or eliminate alimony payments should consider a former spouse’s retirement status, but that should not be the only factor.

Associate Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote that in some circumstances a former spouse paying alimony “may be expected temporarily to postpone retirement or to find part-time work to help the recipient spouse weather difficult financial circumstances.’’

The court rejected the argument that its decision gives a former spouse “veto power’’ that could prevent a former partner from ever retiring.

“We hold that voluntary retirement . . . is simply one factor, albeit an important one, to be considered by the judge in deciding whether to modify the alimony obligation set forth in a divorce judgment,’’ Gants wrote.

The court upheld a probate judge’s decision that rejected Pierce’s request to eliminate his alimony payments to his former wife, Carneice, last year after he retired from a lucrative law practice at age 65. Instead, the judge reduced his annual payments from $110,000 to $42,000. At the time, Carneice Pierce was 64, unemployed, and not eligible for full Social Security benefits.

Attorney David Cherney, who represents Carneice Pierce, said the ruling does not prevent someone from retiring, but requires probate judges to consider all of the circumstances, including how long the marriage lasted and the financial situation of both parties, when weighing requests to cut alimony.

In the Pierces’ case, Cherney said, the court found that “he had the financial ability to continue it even though he retired, and she still had the need for it.’’

Attorney Anthony Doniger, who represents Rudolph Pierce, said the main significance of the ruling is that it recognizes the retirement of a supporting spouse justifies a reduction in alimony, but it is left to the discretion of the judge to decide whether the payments should stop.

Doniger called the ruling “an unfair shifting of responsibility’’ because it essentially says one party, the former wife, can retire, but the other one can’t.

“Fundamentally, in this case the message is he retired prematurely,’’ Doniger said. “He’s got to keep working because he’s got to keep paying her, albeit a reduced amount.’’

The Pierces divorced in 1999 after 32 years of marriage.

Pierce, a former state judge and federal magistrate who earned up to $570,000 a year as a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm, retired in 2008 and began receiving $24,000 a year in Social Security benefits. The court found he also had a retirement account valued at about $843,000 and that his current wife was employed and earning $125,000 a year.

Carneice Pierce had been earning $95,000 annually as a fund-raiser for a nonprofit organization, but resigned in June 2008 after she was told her job was being restructured and she would be required to travel more and handle more territory. She told the court that she resigned because she could no longer physically do the job. The court found she had bank and money market accounts worth nearly $600,000, plus an IRA retirement accounted valued at about $292,000.

Probate Judge Leilah A. Keamy found Rudolph Pierce had not reduced his standard of living after his retirement, while Carneice Pierce had insufficient income to meet her financial needs. Keamy also found that Rudolph Pierce continued to have “significant earning power’’ and could earn $250 an hour at part-time legal work.

Doniger said that there is no evidence Pierce, 67, could get enough part-time work to pay alimony, and that he is using his retirement assets to pay alimony.

“I think we have to go back to court and say, “OK, two years have passed, can I retire now?’’ Doniger said.

Andrew Ryan can be reached at aryan@globe.com. Shelley Murphy can be reached at shmurphy@globe.com.