Divorce Law Journal

Horvath v. Horvath, Ky S. Ct. Temporary Maintenance Arrearages

HORVATH V. HORVATH
TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE ARREARAGES
2006-SC-000837-DG
PUBLISHED: REVERSING
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE SCOTT
COUNTY: KENTON

SC granted discretionary review on the issue of whether monthly payments by Husband to Wife satisfied his temporary maintenance obligation or represented a division of marital property, thus resulting in an arrearage of temporary maintenance payments by Husband.

Facts
While the parties’ dissolution action was pending, they orally agreed that Husband would pay Wife "temporary maintenance" of $1,700 per month. Husband subsequently sold his shares in his business to his partners, for which he was to receive $30,000 in twelve quarterly payments of $2,500 and a consulting fee in the amount of $9,375 per month for three years. When the monthly consulting payments began, Husband increased his payments to Wife up to a monthly amount equal to about half the monthly consulting fee. The trial court subsequently ordered Husband to pay $1,700 per month temporary maintenance as per the parties’ previous agreement. Husband nonetheless continued paying Wife the greater amount, equal to about half of the monthly consulting fee.
TC characterized the sales price as well as the consulting fee for Husband's business interest as a marital asset and treated the increased payments to Wife as a division of marital property, rather than maintenance, and found that Husband owed $1,700 per month in maintenance arrears from the date of the temporary maintenance order to the date of final judgment. CA affirmed.
Analysis
Husband argued that his monthly payments to Wife satisfied his temporary maintenance obligation. SC found that the payments were “undoubtedly” for temporary maintenance as there existed in the record no documentation of any agreement that the increased payments were the result of an agreed division of marital assets, nor did anyone argue that they were gifts. SC found that the fact that the payments were funded by marital property is immaterial. Kentucky law, with few exceptions, presumes that all property acquired subsequent to the marriage and before legal separation is marital property. KRS 403.190(2)-(3). Thus, there is no statutory requirement that temporary maintenance be paid out of non-marital property, so long as each party receives his or her full share of marital property on entry of decree. TC awarded Wife half the value of the consulting fee in its equalization of the marital estate. Thus, of the increased payments Husband made to Wife, Husband was paying Wife $1,700 in temporary maintenance and the remainder as payment towards her half of the consulting fees. Consequently, SC ordered that Husband must now pay Wife her full share of this marital asset, less the amounts she has already received over and above the $1,700 per month she received as temporary maintenance. CA reversed and remanded to TC.
Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates.

More From The Kentucky Supreme Court Yesterday

The Kentucky Supreme Court released its opinion yesterday in Horvath v. Horvath, online here, regarding claimed satisfaction of a temporary maintenance obligation from marital property. A digest will follow.

Jones v. Jones (Ky) Income On NonMarital Property, Increase In Value Of Nonmarital Property, Maintenance

Jones v. Jones, ___S.W.3d___ (Ky. App. 2008)

Ex-Husband appealed TC’s orders classifying his Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP) payments and a portion of the increase in value of his life estate as marital and awarding maintenance and attorney’s fees to Ex-Wife in divorce proceeding.

Prior to the parties’ 18 year marriage, Ex-Husband inherited from his grandfather a life estate in a farm consisting of 215 acres. During the marriage, the parties resided in a residence located on the farm, and Ex-Husband conducted farming operations thereupon. The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement prior to marriage.

In its orders regarding division of property, TC treated future TTPP payments to be made to Ex-Husband as owner of the life estate as marital property in order to effectuate an equitable division of property. CA found that TC erred as a matter of law by classifying the TTPP payments as marital property in order to effectuate a fair distribution of property. The classification of property as marital or nonmarital is not discretionary. CA further found that TTPP owner payments should have been classified as Ex-Husband’s nonmarital property. The TTPP owner payments represent compensation from the government for the taking of the property interest in the tobacco grower’s tobacco quotas. As Ex-Husband inherited the tobacco quotas from his grandfather, they were nonmarital, and the compensation received for them is also nonmarital.

CA also found that future TTPP payments to be made to Ex-Husband as a grower of tobacco should also be classified as Ex-Husband’s nonmarital property. Finding that these TTPP payments supplant income traditionally received from the sale of tobacco, CA found these payments to be properly classified as income. As the income from the sale of tobacco would have been classified as Ex-Husband’s nonmarital property pursuant to the parties’ prenuptial agreement, the grower TTPP payments were also his nonmarital property.

TC found that the parties made substantial improvements to the farm with marital assets, thus the life estate in the farm had a marital component. TC found the actual cost of improvements to the farm totaled $67,000.00, that these improvements were paid for with marital assets, and then adjusted the $67,000 by Ex-Husband's “life estate valuation formula” and concluded the marital property interest was $44,648.00. CA noted that under KRS 403.190(2)(e), any increase in value of property acquired before marriage is nonmarital unless the increase in value is attributed to “the efforts of the parties during marriage.” CA found that TC clearly erred when it equated actual cost of improvements to the life estate in the farm with increase in value to the life estate in the farm. To properly calculate the increase in value attributed to marital improvements upon property acquired before marriage, CA provided that the court must subtract the fair market value of the property at the time of dissolution without marital improvements from the fair market value of the property at the time of dissolution with marital improvements. The difference between such fair market values yields the increase in value attributed to marital improvements upon the property. As to a life estate acquired before marriage, a party may be compensated for the increased value attributed to marital improvements thereon, not to exceed the value of the improvements. Furthermore, when determining the fair market value (FMV) of real property with improvements and without improvements, expert opinion is ordinarily necessary. To be qualified to express an opinion upon FMV of real property, a witness, including the owner thereof, must possess some basis for knowledge of market values. The mere ownership of property does not qualify a lay person to give an opinion upon market value. The actual cost of improvements may be considered as evidence bearing upon FMV but should not be the sole factor. CA noted that if the parties come to the end of their proof with grossly insufficient evidence on the value of the property involved, TC should either order this proof to be obtained, appoint his own experts to furnish this value, at the cost of the parties, or direct that the property be sold. CA directed TC, upon remand, to calculate the marital increase in value of the life estate in the farm by subtracting FMV of the farm at the time of dissolution without marital improvements from the FMV of the farm at the time of dissolution with marital improvements, then, adjust this amount by a life estate valuation formula, but in no event shall the compensation for the marital increase in value to a life estate exceed the value of the improvements thereon.

Ex-Husband also contends TC erred by awarding maintenance to Ex-Wife. As entitlement and amount of maintenance are dependent upon the marital and nonmarital property allocated to the party for a determination of whether the claimant has sufficient resources for her support, CA ruled that Ex-Wife’s maintenance award must also be vacated for reconsideration as part of the underlying property award was reversed on appeal.

Ex-Husband finally contends TC abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to Ex-Wife. Based upon the apparent imbalance of financial resources between the parties, CA found no abuse of discretion in TC’s award to Ex-Wife of a portion of her attorney’s fees.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates.

Croft v. Croft, KY, Marital/Nonmarital property, Maintenance

Croft v. Croft, ___S.W.3d__(Ky. App. 2007)

Wife appealed an order dividing marital property, denying maintenance, and restoring non-marital property. First, Wife argued that the TC erred in finding that the marital residence was Husband’s non-marital property. CA agreed with Wife and reversed and remanded on this issue. Husband purchased the house and adjoining lot before the couple was married. However, the mortgage was paid off after the marriage, with marital funds. CA reasoned that the TC should have acknowledged this fact and apportioned some of the value of the property as marital. Also, the couple made several, post marriage, improvements to the house. Therefore, Wife claimed the increase in value should be considered marital property. Husband argued that the improvements were just regular maintenance and “were not substantial enough to warrant an increase in value.” CA opined that a TC needs only to determine that the increase in value was due to improvements and not just economic conditions in order for the property to qualify as marital property. Absent clear and convincing evidence that the increased value was due to economic conditions alone the property should be considered marital.
Next, Wife argued it was error for the TC to deny her claim for permanent maintenance. TC held that considering the length of the marriage ( the parties were married in 1997) and the division of property maintenance was not appropriate. CA held that the TC’s decision was not an abuse of discretion because it was supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, Wife argued that the TC erred because it did not divide the property proportionately. CA held that the TC did not err in its division of property. CA opined that husband had presented sufficient evidence that certain items in his possession were his non-marital property. Additionally, wife provided no evidence that any of that property was marital.
Digested by Linda Dixon Bullock, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Clark v. Clark, Maintenance, Marital And Nonmarital Property

Clark v. Clark, ___ S. W. 3d ___ (Ky. App. 2007)

DESIGNATED TO BE PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING IN PART; VACATING AND REMANDING IN PART
PANEL: ACREE PRESIDING; KELLER AND LAMBERT CONCURRING;
COUNTY: JEFFERSON
DATE RENDERED: 9/21/2007

Ex-Wife appealed from TC’s Order assigning value to a 2002 Ford Taurus, not valuing or dividing certain certificates of deposit (CD’s) and reducing her maintenance. Parties separated after eighteen years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, Ex-Wife was 70 years old and Ex-Husband was 78. Prior to their marriage, Ex-Husband owned a home, land and livestock. Ex-Husband sold his livestock shortly after the marriage and purchased CD’s with the proceeds. During their marriage, the parties lived on Ex-Husband's social security and pension benefits and, once Ex-Wife reached 62, her social security benefits.

While Ex-Wife's dissolution petition was pending, Ex-Husband was ordered to pay $300.00 per month pendente lite maintenance. After trial, TC found a Taurus to be marital property and awarded it to Ex-Wife with a value of $12,000.00. The CD’s were neither assigned nor awarded since Ex-Wife failed to present any evidence that they existed at the time of the parties' divorce. After dividing all marital property, TC reduced Ex-Wife's maintenance award to a monthly sum of $100.00. Ex-Wife filed this appeal. Subsequently, Ex-Wife filed a CR 60.02 Motion for TC to consider new evidence reflecting that Ex-Husband had cashed out CD’s prior to dissolution but after separation. TC denied this motion. CA indicated that any appeal of that Motion must be separate from this appeal.

Ex-Wife first argues the trial court abused its discretion when it assumed facts not in evidence about the value of the 2002 Ford Taurus, and further arguing that Ex-Husband had purchased the car as a gift for her and, thus, it was not marital property within the definition of Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 403.190(2). At trial, Ex-Husband disputed that the Taurus was purchased as a gift to Ex-Wife and, indeed, the car was titled in both parties' names. At trial, neither party testified as to the current value of the Taurus. TC found that Ex-Wife failed to meet her burden of proving that the car was her nonmarital property. The car was awarded to Ex-Wife and assigned the $12,000.00 value listed as its NADA book value in Ex-Husband's mandatory case disclosure. Ex-Wife contends it was incumbent upon Ex-Husband to introduce evidence of the car's value at trial, since he argued it was a marital asset, citing CR 43.01(1), which states, “The party holding the affirmative of an issue must produce the evidence to prove it.” Ex-Wife claimed Ex-Husband’s failure to introduce evidence of its value at trial deprived her of the opportunity to refute this figure. Thus, she argues the burden of refuting the Taurus' supposed value of $12,000.00 never fell to her. She asked CA to assign a value of zero dollars to the car or, in the alternative, to allow her to present evidence contradicting the value assigned by TC. CA disagreed with Ex-Wife’s contentions. CA noted that Ex-Wife had filed her own MCD but failed to assign any value to the Taurus because she contended it was her nonmarital property value as $12,000.00, was filed in the record on June 30, 2004. Ex-Wife had notice that Ex-Husband was characterizing the car as marital property and also of its asserted value. It appears that, instead of introducing her own evidence regarding the car's value, Ex-Wife relied on her ability to persuade TC of the car's nonmarital character. CA found no error in TC’s decision on this issue.

Ex-Wife next argues that TC’s division should have recognized and divided the CD’s between the parties. At trial, Ex-Wife introduced records showing existence of CD’s in 2001. She did not testify to the source of the funds, and offered no proof that the CD’s still existed. Ex-Husband testified that all of the funds used to purchase the CD’s came from the sale of his nonmarital livestock and that the CD’s were exhausted during the marriage.TC found that it was unable to award or assign an asset whose existence was unproven. Ex-Wife asked CA to consider evidence she presented in support of her CR 60.02 motion that Ex-Husband had cashed out the CD’s shortly after the parties separated. However, CA noted that it had issued a previous order that issues related to this Motion must be contained to a timely appeal of that Motion, and Ex-Wife failed to timely appeal that Motion. CA found no error in TC’s order on this issue.

Finally, Ex-Wife argued TC abused its discretion when it reduced her maintenance award, as it set her permanent maintenance so low that she would be dependent upon others for the means to meet her basic needs. At trial, Ex-Wife told TC that she was currently obliged to live with her daughter, and, as a result, TC subtracted her rent and telephone bills from her monthly living expenses. CA held that a TC’s failure to award a sum sufficient to allow a spouse to meet her needs without requiring that she depend on the generosity of family and friends was plainly an abuse of discretion. CA held that TC clearly erred, as its Order did not address the issue of Ex-Wife's current standard of living versus the lifestyle she shared with Ex-Husband during their marriage. TC’s order affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to TC to review maintenance award.
As digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates.

To Be Tax Deductible Alimony Must Terminate On Death Of Recipient

You can read Hinson v. Commissioner, US Tax Court Summary Opinion 2007-92 (June 7, 2007) here. The code is quite clear that to be taxable income/tax deductible, alimony (maintenance) must terminate on the dearth of the payee. The Family Law Prof Blog reports:

The tax court, in a recent summary opinion, provides a good example for our students of the importance of careful drafting in light of the interrelationship between the tax code and state law when determining the tax consequences of divorce. In this case, the divorce decree provided that Husband would pay Wife $1200 a month in “rehabilitative alimony” and an additional $72,000 in “lump-sum alimony”, payable in installments of $600 a month. The decree did not indicate whether this lump sum
award would terminate upon Wife’s death.

Under section 71(b) of the tax code, alimony is not deductible if it does not terminate upon the payee spouse’s death. Because the Florida courts have held that an award of lump-sum alimony survives the death of both the obligor and the obligee, the alimony was not properly deductible.

Discretionary Review Granted In Maintenance Case (KY)

Horvath v. Horvath, 2004-CA-002591-MR, designated not to be published, discretionary review granted 4/11/2007
Here's the digest of the Court of Appeals decision:

Issues and Holdings:
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the husband owed a maintenance arrearage to wife. The Court held no, the trial court did not err as husband failed to show how he was prejudiced by the court’s order.
2. Whether the trial court erred in awarding prospective maintenance to the wife for life. The Court held yes, the trial court misapplied the criteria set out in KRS 403.200(2) and failed to make appropriate findings of fact.

Facts:
The parties married on December 9, 1963 and separated on March 30, 2001. In November 2002 the parties agreed that the husband would pay the wife $1700.00 a month in temporary maintenance. In February 2003 the husband sold his business interest to his two partners in exchange for $30,000.00. The husband also received a consulting fee of $9375.00 per month for three years. In March 2003, when the consulting payments began, the husband stopped paying the wife $1700.00 per month. Instead, he paid her half the consulting fee, less tax withholding, her health insurance, and half the cost of the parties’ business properties. These payments ranged from $4339.50 to $2921.61 a month. The company also suspended the payments for a couple months in 2004.
The trial court held that these payments were a division of proceeds from the sale marital property, not maintenance. Thus, the court found that the husband still owed the wife $1700.00 per month in maintenance from July 16, 2003 to the date of judgment. The trial court did not hold the husband in contempt, but ordered that the arrearage be paid within 30 days from entry of judgment. The trial court also awarded the wife $1200.00 per month in maintenance for life. Husband appealed.

Analysis:
The Court found that the trial court correctly concluded that the consulting fees were a marital asset to be divided. Therefore, whether the money owed is characterized as maintenance arrearage or marital asset, the husband still owed the wife the money. Since the husband failed to show how he was prejudiced by the trial court’s characterization of the amount as maintenance arrearage, the Court upheld the lower court’s ruling.
Regarding the prospective maintenance award, the Court found that the husband presented no compelling reason to disturb the trial court’s determination that the wife was entitled to maintenance. However, the Court found that the trial court misapplied KRS 403.200(2) in determining the amount and duration of maintenance. The Court agreed that the trial court should have considered the husband’s debts. The husband’s debts should not be excluded from consideration just because they were classified as nonmarital. The fact that the debts were incurred during the parties’ separation and without the wife’s express consent does not render them a dissipation of marital assets. The trial court can find that debts incurred by one party during separation constitute a dissipation only where there was a clear intent by one party to deprive the other of marital assets. Otherwise, the trial court must consider all debts, marital and nonmarital, in determining the husband’s ability to meet his reasonable needs while paying maintenance to the wife. Therefore, the Court remanded this issue for further factual findings and a recalculation of the maintenance award, if appropriate.

Potter, Senior Judge, Dissented in part.
The husband was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to give him credit against his maintenance obligation for payments made. Husband paid the maintenance twice, once from marital assets during the separation and again from his separate property after the divorce. The trial court’s ruling seemed to hold that because the marital property used to pay the maintenance could be traced to the proceeds of a sale of property and not income, the payments did not count. The law does not recognize such a principal-income distinction.

Digested by Sarah Jost Nielsen, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Same Sex Cohabitation Terminates Maintenance Notwithstanding Gay Marriage Ban

One of the questions we pondered as states passed DOMAs and constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage was what effect such would have on divorces between heterosexuals. Larry O'Dell,
Associated Press Writer, Richmond, Va. wrote about a recent Virginia Court of Appeals ruling, Stroud v. Stroud in which same-sex cohabitation terminated a contractual obligation to pay maintenance. His story is here. Some excerpts:

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said the appeals court seemed to be treating same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples--but only in the narrow analysis of contract law, not the broader public policy context.

Chris Freund, spokesman for conservative Family Foundation of Virginia, said the ruling proves that opponents of last year's constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriages and civil unions were wrong in claiming the measure would interfere with private contract rights.

"Today's decision is simply about a contract between two people and has nothing to do with how the Commonwealth of Virginia defines or recognizes marriage," he said.

But David Spratt, former chairman of the Virginia Bar Association's Domestic Relations Section, said the ruling could have more far-reaching consequences depending on how this area of the law evolves.

"The legislature certainly does not recognize same-sex relationships as anything--they don't even recognize the capacity of same-sex couples to contract," said Spratt, now a legal rhetoric professor at American University, Washington College of Law. "So the fact that a court is saying a relationship between same-sex couples can be analogous to marriage is important."

He noted that Virginia law defines adultery as sexual intercourse between a married person and someone of the opposite sex. By recognizing same-sex cohabitation, the court could provide the impetus to change the adultery law to cover homosexual acts, Spratt suggested. Such legislation died in the session that ended Saturday.

The gay-rights group Equality Virginia, which opposed the so-called "marriage amendment" that was approved by voters in November, had no immediate response to Tuesday's ruling.

Maintenace Modification Only If Wife's Circumstances Improve

Note: This "to be published" case is not final; a motion for discretionary review has been filed:
Massey v. Massey, __ S.W.3d __ (Ky. App. 2006), 2006 WL 2517525 (Ky. App.
Issues and Holdings:
1) Whether a maintenance order that is subject to modification is an open-ended award rather than lump sum. The Court held yes, such an order is an open-ended maintenance award.
2) Whether the family court’s order permitting modification of maintenance only if the former wife’s income increased was authorized by the maintenance modification statute. The Court held no, such an order is not permitted under the statute.
3) Whether the amount of maintenance awarded was adequate. The Court held yes, the award was adequate.
4) Whether the family court’s findings were sufficient to support the five-year duration of the maintenance award. The Court held no, the court’s findings were insufficient.

Facts:

The parties were married on August 21, 1982 and divorced on September 3, 2004. Lisa, the Appellant, was 41-years-old at the time of the divorce. One child was born of the marriage. The court awarded Michael sole custody of the child. Lisa was granted visitation, and ordered to pay $175 per month in child support. Lisa was awarded maintenance of $1200 per month, which was to be offset by her child

Few Men Seek Alimony

Few men seek alimony. That is why it is news that The Miami Herald reports in its story on Sunday, CBS4 anchor asks wife for alimony.

As co-anchor of the 5:30 p.m. newscast and an Emmy-winning reporter, (Eliott)Rodriguez earns $300,000 a year. His wife, Univisión anchor Maria Elena Salinas, 51, earns more: upward of $2 million a year, with $60,000 a month available for expenses, he said in court papers....

Reluctant to be cast as a poster boy for alimony, Rodriguez explained the instructions he gave his attorneys.
"I said `Look, I'm a journalist. What I do for a living is gather information. I've gathered the information in my case and given it to all of you very high-priced lawyers. Now please apply it to my case and let me move on,' '' he said in a telephone interview. ``Instead, I find myself in the middle of this legal battle that I don't want to be a part of.''
Rodriguez says that he is going after the alimony because he is entitled to it because of the difference in salaries and marital lifestyle. If he wasn't entitled to it, Rodriguez says, he would not want it....

Sometimes, men can be their own worst enemy.
Gaetano Ferro, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and an attorney in New Canaan, Conn., once represented a woman who owned a book-publishing company. Her husband was a mechanic and earned far less, but he refused to ask for alimony.
''It's a macho thing,'' said Burton Young, a family law attorney for 57.... Because of the difficulty in winning alimony, he sees it as a better negotiating tool.

Awards of maintenance in Kentucky are supposed to be gender neutral, and in Jefferson County, I believe the law has been applied. I would think the bigger hurdle is convincing a court that one cannot meet his own reasonable needs on $300,000 per year. A spouse with such earnings really cannot live as well as one who earns over $2million per year, but that threshold requirement of being unable to meet one's own reasonable requires some good advocacy to surmount.

Improper Factors in Calculating Maintenance

From The Family law Prof Blog: "The Supreme Court of Connecticut has affirmed the court of appeals ruling in a case in which a couple were married for 11 years, lived together for a number of years and then remarried for six years." (See Family Law Prof Blog post of February 10, 2006) "The court of appeals had found that the trial court, in fixing the term of the maintenance award, improperly took into consideration both the prior marriage and cohabitation and the fact that there were adult children with grandchildren residing in the house."
"The court concludes that 'length of the marriage' criterion prescribed in [statutes governing maintenance awards], as a matter of law, does not include prior marriages or cohabitation preceding the marriage."
My tech learning curve stopped at posting .pdf docs. so here's the not so pretty link to the opinion:http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR280/280cr8.pdf. Maybe early next year I can find a little time with a fire blazing in the fireplace to putter with the tech stuff, much like earlier this year when I gave this site a soft launch.

Sponsor of Immigrant Spouse May Have to Make Good on Financial Affidavit of Support

Sponsor of immigrant may have to make good on affidavit of financial support from FlaDivorceLawBlog.

Wheeler v. Wheeler, 154 SW3 291 (Ky.App., 2005)

Wheeler v. Wheeler, 154 SW3 291 (Ky.App., 2005)
Where first maintenance modification motion was denied,
and no modification resulted, the trial court must look at change
of circumstances since the original agreement or decree.
Res judica does not preclude the court from looking at facts and circumstances
occurring prior to the first motion for modification when no
modification was granted. In modifying an agreement
that is subject to further orders of court, the court must
examine the factors set out in Combs v. Combs to determine
whether cohabitation justifies a reduction in maintenance.

Value of Homemaker Services

Bonnie Brown, a Louisville attorney, AAML fellow and KCFN member, sent this article from the May 3, 2006  Boston Globe quantifying the value of homemaker services. While divorce does not directly provide a vehicle for compensating such services, we remind each other from time to time of a case where she made this argument as part of a spousal support claim. She was delighted to see the article putting a dollar number on the value,and I’m glad to pass it on.

Gomez v. Gomez, 168 SW3d 51 (KY. App., 2005)

Gomez v. Gomez, 168 SW3d 51 (KY. App., 2005)
Hospital based medical practice valuation which included
no goodwill value was reluctantly affirmed because, while
capitalization of excess earnings method is an acceptable
approach, the trial court is not required to use this method
and trial court ruling as to valuation will not be disturbed
unless clearly contrary to the evidence submitted. The
Court of Appeals reversed the maintenance award ($5,000
per month for three years + $2,424 per month for first and
second mortgages where husband grossed $600,000) to
$800,000 per year. Assignment of $52,000 credit card debt to
wife was also reversed because at least $18,000 of the debt
was for two rugs, of which the husband received one and the
debt was in the husband's name. The Court of Appeals also
reversed the attorney fee award of only 22% of wife's attorney
fees as the trial court did not enumerate any of the factors set
out in Sexton v. Sexton.

Notes from Laura Morgan and Guy Ferro's Spousal Support Presentation

Laura Morgan, www.FamLawConsult.com, VA (the “Goddess” and co-author of the Spousal Support Handbook to be published by the ABA in 2007) and Gaetano(“Guy”) Ferro, CT, President-Elect, AAML, presented Alimony, Spousal Support and Maintenance: A Musical in Six Acts at the AAML/LBA Family Law seminar at the LBA April 21, 2006. Here's the general outline and a few notes. Thanks Laura and Guy for permitting me to post about your great presentation.

“Those Were the Days, My Friend”

!. Introduction “Something’s Gotta Give”
What is Spousal Support and what is it supposed to accomplish?

II Traditional View of Alimony “Bbbbbad to the Bbbbone”
“I Know a Little Bit About a Lot of Things But I Don’t Know Enough About You”

III The First Wave “People Get Ready, There’s A Change A Comin”
Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act
“I am Woman, Hear Me Roar”
“I Will Survive”
“Working Nine to Five”

IV The Second Wave “Will You Still Need Me When I’m Sixty-Four”
“What I’ll Do When You Are Far Away And I Am Blue”
“Yip Yip Yip, Mum Mum Mum…Get a Job”
“What’s Goin On?”
“Take This Job and Shove It”

V Unanswered Questions “Time Keeps Slipping, Slipping Into the Future”
“Get Out of Here, and Give Me Some Money, Too”

VI Current Trends “Money, That’s What I Want”
Compensation Based Method of Support
Fault “Your Cheatin Heart”
“Oh, I Believe in Yesterday”

VII Kentucky Law “The Sun Shines Bright in my Old Kentucky Home, ‘Tis Summer, the People are Gay” (unless you want to adopt children)
“Well, You Can Cry Me a River”
Turns away from UMDA, applies principle of the “equal degradation of standard of living of both parties” (not the legal standard, this is the description of the result as communicated by a KY Fellow at last year's seminar)

VIII Alimony Guidelines
Broad discretion in award of alimony is no longer justifiable and should be discarded in favor of guidelines, if not adopted as an outright rule. Bacon v. Bacon, 819 So2d 950 (Fla 4th DCA 2002)
The New Mexico Experiment 38 Family Law Quarterly 29 (2005)
38 June Md. B.J. 46 (2005)
33 U. Louisville J. Family Law 971,972 (1995)
Victoria Ho has also published on guidelines in the Florida Bar Journal and Divorce Litigation
Some Michigan counties use “Alimony Series” software endorsed by the Family Law Council of the Michigan Bar Association (www.marginsoft.net)
Fairfax VA Bar Association has download of guidelines of pendente lite alimony that has been in use since 1981
Arizona: www.azbar.org/sections/family/archives/
Nevada has computer program which gives support result based on historical judicial awards over 30 years with analysis of factors underlying awards.
Johnson County Kansas guidelines distributed. AAML Fellow Ron Nelson is a big supporter of these guidelines. 20% (no children) 25%(with children) of difference in gross income of parties, gross income defined by child support guidelines definition, duration 2 years for first 5 yrs of marriage then 1 year for every 3 yrs, with maximum of 10 years plus 1 month, but there are other factors that may be considered.

There is growing, but guarded support of adoption of guidelines

In short term marriages, support is less problematic. In long term marriages, indeterminate awards are preferred.

IX ALI Principles, Compensating Spousal Payments
Principles of Family Law and Recommendations, 2002, 1100 pages, spousal compensation section, 110 pages. Useful state-by-state statement of the law ; recommendations for spousal support are controversial. They created the policy that spousal support should be compensation to allocate financial losses arising from dissolution that are equitable in application and disregard fault. Compensable loss of earnings include those related to caretaking of children or others to whom moral responsibility arose. The person who earns most of the money should end up with most of it. Comments to the final draft say they are merging concepts of support and property.

X The AAML Response
In response to a survey, most Fellows believed the most important factor should be need, then the length of marriage and earnings and the least important factor is fault. What most Fellows like least about guidelines was the lack of discretion and interestingly, what most Fellows like least about the lack of guidelines is too much discretion resting with the court! A blue ribbon Academy committee is studying the issue and the AAML expects to publish a formal official response

Further Reading:
Starnes, Mothers as Suckers: Pity, Partnership and Divorce Discourse, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 1513 (2005),
Kapalla, Some Assembly Required: Why States Should Not Adopt the ALI’s System of Presumptive Alimony Wards in Its Current Form, 2004 Mich. St. L. Review 207
(2004)

ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!