Holding maintenance open to wife rather than awarding maintenance affirmed after marriage of almost 30 years where parties agreed that husband would retire so the parties could do missionary work. Not published, but citeable.
Maintenance award reversed as appellate court does not see a reasonable basis for a significant disparity in the parties’ income where husband would have paid wife far more than 50% of the joint income. Not published, but citeable.
Denial of maintenance affirmed where husband’s efforts did not increase Wife’s earning capacity and did not subordinate his education or career to devote time and energy to the welfare, career or education of the other spouse or to managing the affairs of the marital partnership.
Trial court affirmed for holding maintenance open to husband (for purpose of ensuring payment of debts) and denying it to wife based on the enhanced value of the degree she earned during the marriage.
Trial court affirmed in denying maintenance to husband in 39 year marriage where both spouses were employable and could attain approximately the same total income if they both chose to continue working.
Trial court’s denial of maintenance to wife was not unfair, given her failure to take reasonable steps to find employment during separation, the fact that she did not contribute to husband’s career and the income she can earn from employment plus retirement benefits.
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by stating that a spouse has a legal right to maintenance.
No error in awarding $1,500 per month for 10 years in 23 year marriage where wife had CPA and was going to receive substantial property division award.
60-40 split of income affirmed where trial court found wife was capable of obtaining a full-time position.
Contribution to child care and economic support to family represents only what a spouse is legally and morally obligated to provide: it is not a vehicle by which a party receives a “refund” for such services.
Contribution to child care and economic support to family represents only what a spouse is legally and morally obligated to provide: it is not a vehicle by which a party receives a “refund” for such services.
No error in $300 per month for 24 months maintenance award for mid-life marriage lasting relatively short time (8 years).
Trial court did not fully consider statutory factors when it did not mention wife’s ability to become self-supporting in the future. Failure to consider wife’s earning capacity was a misuse of discretion.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that wife’s future income would be reasonably comparable to her standard of living during the marriage. Trial court need not guarantee the same standard.
Maintenance is not required in every long term marriage where there is disparate income. Here, wife did not increase her husband’s earning capacity or sacrifice her own.
Multiple issues. See full summary.
(1) LaRocque mandates an approach, not a result. (2) Reduction of income available for maintenance to pay business expenses was reasonable. (3) Although it is not recommended, offset of child support against maintenance is affirmed.
“Good fortune and highly elevated income” are factors the court can consider in determining maintenance. LaRocque fairness objective applies to a short marriage.
Court abused its discretion by failing to apply statutory factors and not giving full play to the objectives of maintenance. The court considered ability to pay, but did not discharge its duty by simply equalizing the post-divorce income. The court should have considered the feasibility of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting and the length of time necessary to achieve this goal.
Wife not entitled to more maintenance solely because husband can afford to pay more – husband should not be punished for making more money.