Barry M. Altman v. Steven G. Johnson

Court Case involving attorney fees

Hearing in Lowell

June 11, 2026

Some points to keep in mind for next hearing.

Steve’s presentation went over well. He began by asking the judge for

permission to read it; he then read with feeling, making it clear that this was no

small matter but one that had caused a good deal of mental anguish.

Regarding the complexities of the case and the long day of arguments noted by

Altman, the judge said, “I think this is a fascinating case.” [Anything that makes it

more interesting to her, after hearing rather straightforward custody cases all day,

involving spouses with drinking or gambling problems, might be a plus.]

Steve spontaneously cited two examples of case law, one being (something like)

Murray vs Murray, and one involving the name Rose. Get more on these? He

sounded very well informed when he tossed these to the judge.

The judge said she would do some research on Social Security garnishments,

specifically on the limits of any garnishment; Altman said the limit was 65%.

Steve mentioned 72% in his opening remarks. [It would be good to clarify the

72%, since Altman doesn’t seem to agree with it, and it seems a very critical part

of Steve’s argument.]

References made by Altman to what he called the “trustee process” (this term is

used in New England to mean “garnishment” — the “trustee” being the employer

holding funds owed to the defendant and turning a portion of those funds over to

the court, or the lawyer, instead of giving them to the employee) included Chapter

208 Section 36A and Rule 4.2. He described these as “avenues to proceed” - I

think he meant two possible ways of collecting his fees. He said earlier, “There

has to be a process” to collect fees. [Maybe Steve should note how much he has

paid already. He could check on the average amount of fees paid in a case like

his, since he owes more in fees than he paid for the entire 20 years of child

support. When he made this point spontaneously, it seemed to impress the

judge.]

Some dates: Filed for divorce 2004; 2007 final; filed motion to reduce child

support. This motion came very soon after the divorce was final; Steve could

comment on that. At what point did he lose his job? At what point did he file

bankruptcy?]

The fees awarded by Judge Gibson were to be paid in 90 days; they weren’t

paid. [Why? Need some comment on that.]

The judge is concerned about the ongoing nature of the case: “This is never

going to end.” It’s important to note this. On the other hand, she chastised

Altman for suggesting Steve filed too many motions. She said he had a very well

established right to file as many as he wanted to file; it wasn’t up to Altman to say

when it was too much. She said any time there was “a change in

circumstances” he could file a motion. [Be sure to note the change in

circumstances that provoke any future motion.]

The judge asked Altman about the defendant’s “ability to pay” and Altman said it

“was not a factor. There’s no exemption for ability to pay.” But Steve had filed

bankruptcy. How does this affect what he owes? Also, isn’t there always some

recognition of a person’s ability to pay a debt? Altman sounds very hard-hearted

here. Steve did not that it would take him 40 years to pay Altman’s fees if he

loses the bulk of his social security. This was a good point, well made.

Altman said flat out about his fees: “This is unpaid child support” and “Judge

Gibson approved the trustee process (i.e., garnishment).” Maybe Steve needs a

stronger argument that the fees are fees, not child support; what does “in the

nature of” mean here?

The judge said she was aware of other courts’ findings (Altman said he won and

Steve lost in three of them) but that she would make her own decision. This is

hopeful for Steve’s position, but does suggest there’s a lot going against him.

What will Steve do if the judge says you have no choice now but to pay the full

amount owed or to go to mediation? Paul thinks this is a good possibility

because Steve’s case looks like a lot of work for her and she might want to get it

off her plate; on the other hand, it is a much more interesting case than the

others she heard through a long day of custody issues. She might think she will

get in the books on this one? So it’s worth spending time with it? (I don’t know

how these things are judged.)

The judge did not know what the limit of garnishment on Soc Sec was. Altman

told her 65%. He said on a regular debt you can’t garnish SS — see 42 USC

Section 40. But see 42 USC Section 659 for an exception. (How does this figure

with the 72% Steve mentioned?). You can see why Steve wanted some

clarification from the federal court.

When Steve said he had always paid on time for 20 years, Sue vigorously shook

her head. Steve later mentioned that Sue had taken $12,000 out of the divorce

funds to pay for a trip to England with the kids soon after the divorce was settled.

He said if she took that money he had a right not to pay child support. So what is

the story here? This seems to contradict Steve’s statement that he paid every

week on time. And this seems an important part of Steve’s case, so it needs to

be addressed, or at least kept on hand if it’s needed.

Regarding the federal case. Is it correct that the judge (Stearns) “abstained.”

Altman cited some case, including Younger v Harris (not sure I heard this

correctly.). Take a look at the cases he mentioned. Something about “second

factors”?)

In the end the judge said “This isn’t straightforward” and that she would have to

think about it. She also said she didn’t to go by what other courts have decided,

opening the way for a different conclusion.

An aside from the judge: If Steve dies and the house goes to the children (I

assume there is a will in which this is clearly indicated), his debt is “extinguished,”

and the children do not have to pay it. She seemed to want him to realize that,

which showed some concern for his state of mind, which was obviously pretty

painful.

Another aside from the judge: She asked Altman if he had considered

foreclosing on the property against which he held two sizable liens. He didn’t

answer directly but said, “He (Steve) could sell the home and pay us or go to

mediation.”

Another aside: Steve filed in federal court to get “clarification” on the Social

Security garnishment rules. But it looks as though he didn’t get the clarification?

This wasn’t clear during the hearing. So it’s important to look at that case and

see how it affects things.