Payne v. Payne (2023): Fluctuating Income

Published on
September 18, 2023
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq.
Category
Family Law

Alimony has been one of the most frequently discussed topics here on our blog. This is by design. Alimony remains one of the more controversial aspects of family law, in part because of various celebrity cases which involve high monthly payments. Alimony may also be controversial for other reasons, such as its association with gender issues. When it comes to awarding alimony, judges have substantial latitude in making determinations. This wide latitude is written into Maryland law, as most trial court rulings will be upheld unless there is clear evidence that the determination was unreasonable. However, although judges have latitude in making determinations, developing an award which accurately reflects all the subtleties of a given situation isn’t easy.

In cases involving spouses paid on commission, for example, coming up with a reasonable alimony award can be quite difficult. Let’s explore this issue a bit more by examining the case of Payne v. Payne (2023).

Overview of the Case

In the Payne v. Payne case, the primary issue which caused complexity was the fact that the husband earned his living on a commission only basis. The wife worked as a radiation therapist and earned approximately $100,000. The husband, by contrast, earned between $350,000 to $520,000 working as a sales engineer for a commercial HVAC company. His income fluctuated between these amounts during the years 2017 to 2021.

Calculating alimony in cases involving salaries and other stable streams of income is relatively simple. Things can become trickier when the alimony derives from commission only income. The alimony award was determined by the trial court judge, who considered the average earnings over the period from 2017 to 2021. In the two most recent years, 2020 and 2021, the husband made considerably less than he did in the years 2017 through 2019. Hence, when the judge made the award, the alimony amount was higher than what would’ve been awarded by looking only at the years 2020 and 2021. The average for 2020-2021 was around $30,000 per month (income for the husband), but for alimony purposes his average monthly income was set at about $37,500.

Judges Have Wide Discretion

Ultimately, the judge awarded an alimony amount based on this average from incomes earned between 2017 through 2021. The husband was dissatisfied with this amount because it included earnings from his higher earning years. But, per Maryland law, judges have discretion to award alimony amounts based on the all relevant facts and circumstances; although there are familiar factors which hold weight, the final determination depends on a careful assessment of the particular facts in a given instance. So, although the husband was unhappy with the relatively high award, there was nothing in the law which could be used to successfully overturn this determination. The award remained in place even after the husband attempted to reverse it.

Reach Out to the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Resources

This case highlights the importance of giving each individual situation its own careful analysis. Every case is fact driven, and so even one small fact can alter the final outcome. If you would like to know more, get in touch with the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-222-1187.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

agreement|Alimony|Automatic reduction provision|Counsel|Divorce|Divorce lawyer|Family attorney|Family Law|Marriage issue|Maryland Divorce Lawyer|Maryland Family Lawyer|Maryland Law|Maryland lawyer|Private Settlement|Property Agreement|Provision|Payne v. Payne|Settlement |Settlement agreement|Legal Representation|Marital Property|TrialCourtJudgment|FamilyLaw| Fluctuating Income | Alimony | Payne v. Payne (2023)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.