.webp)
.png)
Alimony is something which we have spent considerable time discussing in the past. This is by design, as alimony remains among the more critical topics in family law. Alimony is widely discussed because it is so consequential: alimony literally means that one spouse will make regular payments – or, in some cases, a single lump sum payment – to the other spouse post-divorce. When people divorce, one of the key things being sought is finality with respect to the relationship with the other person; people want to “be done” with the situation, to sever all ties of all sorts. Alimony mandates that the spouses will remain financially tied together even after the divorce, and this is one reason why alimony continues to be a controversial matter in the legal field.
Not only is alimony controversial, it is also a relatively complex matter. Alimony has several different variations, including indefinite alimony and rehabilitative alimony. In the recent case of Nakhostin v. Nakhostin (2024), the court touched on the conditions which need to be met to justify these types of alimony. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
The spouses in this case both had well paying jobs, but the husband’s job paid substantially more than the wife’s job. The husband was a computer engineer who worked for Microsoft, and at the time of the divorce he earned approximately $290,000 per year. The wife, on the other hand, worked as a videographer and graphic designer, and earned an annual income of roughly $90,000 per year.
The wife initially petitioned for indefinite alimony. Indefinite alimony essentially means that one spouse will make payments to the other spouse for an unspecified amount of time. This often means that the payments are made for life. Typically, to receive indefinite alimony, the recipient needs to demonstrate that he or she is literally unable to work or obtain a satisfactory standard of living; this is usually achieved by showing a physical or mental impairment. However, in some cases, the court will award indefinite alimony in order to avoid an “unconscionable disparity” between the spouses after divorce.
At the trial court level, the court rejected the wife’s request for indefinite alimony, holding that, although there was no question that the husband earned substantially more, the difference was not so great that the exception of unconscionable disparity would apply. Instead, the court found that rehabilitative alimony was more warranted, and ordered that the husband make rehabilitative payments to the wife for 5 years.
Ruling & Discussion
The husband appealed the trial court’s rehabilitative alimony award. Upon first glance, the award of rehabilitative alimony for 5 years may seem reasonable, particularly given the relatively sizable disparity in income between the spouses. But, in reality, rehabilitative alimony has strict criteria which must be met to justify an award, and in this situation those criteria were not satisfied. The primary criterion for rehabilitative alimony is that the petitioning spouse must require additional training or education to become self-supporting. A typical scenario which might justify such an award would be a spouse who stayed at home to be a full-time caretaker for many years prior to divorce. In this scenario, the wife was already earning an income, and did not require additional training or education, she simply earned less than her husband because of differential career trajectories. The court sided with the husband and overturned the rehabilitative award on this basis.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If readers want to know more about the various types of alimony in Maryland, or about how to modify an existing alimony award, or about property division, or any other family law matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
