In the case of Pierce v. Pierce, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed the issue of alimony modification following the retirement of Rudolph F. Pierce. Rudolph and Carneice G. Pierce were married for thirty-two years before divorcing in 1999. Their separation agreement required Rudolph to pay alimony to Carneice, which would terminate upon the death of either party or Carneice’s remarriage. In 2008, Rudolph retired and sought to terminate his alimony obligation, arguing that his retirement constituted a material change in circumstances. The court, however, ruled that retirement alone did not automatically justify the termination of alimony. Instead, the court emphasized the need to consider all statutory factors, such as the length of the marriage, the parties’ financial situations, and their future earning capacities. The court ultimately reduced Rudolph’s alimony obligation but did not terminate it, highlighting the importance of balancing the financial sacrifices of both parties.