.webp)
In many cases, divorced spouses end up paying both alimony awards and child support. This circumstance can happen easily whenever a couple has children. And if there is an imbalance in the earning power between the spouses or some other reason to base an alimony award. Given a dual payment schedule, any given person could fall into financial trouble when trying to comply. Not infrequently, payees experience financial difficulties when trying to meet their court-ordered obligations; when this happens, various consequences can follow, including a modification of the alimony award, termination of the award, wage garnishment, and so forth.
In this post, we will discuss the case of Nusbaum v. Nusbaum, a case which, among other things, demonstrates the hassles which can follow whenever someone falls behind on their obligations.
Facts & Outcome of the Case
The couple in this case divorced in 2005, and the trial court mandated that the ex-husband pay alimony and child support. The amounts were $3,250 per month and $1,422 per month. Importantly, the alimony award was “non-modifiable,” which means that the husband lacked the option of having the order modified at a later date. Ultimately, the ex-husband fell behind on his obligations. The payments had been distributed directly via wage garnishment at the ex-wife’s request. After falling behind, the husband attempted to modify the payments so that he could settle his balance. Up to that point, the garnishments had been allocated 70% to the alimony and 30% to child support.
The husband argued that this allocation structure should be altered so that 100% of the child support be paid. And then any remainder would go toward the alimony award after that. The trial court rejected the husband’s argument, as did the appellate court. In its reasoning, the appellate court stated that it simply didn’t have the authority to alter the allocation structure because developing the structure is the power of Maryland’s executive state agencies. If the court overturned that structure, it would be overstepping its “separation of powers” bounds. The court did indicate, however, that they could terminate a non-modifiable alimony order because termination is distinct from modification.
Options for “Non-Modifiable Alimony” Awards
The critical point of this case is that litigants should always attempt to determine their best action in a given situation. Although the husband’s initial efforts were unsuccessful – in the sense that he didn’t achieve the reallocation sought – he still had a recourse because he could’ve petitioned the court to terminate the alimony award altogether. If he had a compelling reason as to why he fell behind, there is a distinct possibility that the court would’ve terminated the award. This case also illustrates that the principle of “separation of powers” informs every facet of our state government, even though the ordinary person may not be aware that this is the case.
Many people assume this principle isn’t as abided as it may have been in the past, but that’s not true. If a Maryland judge believes they will violate this principle, you can be sure they will take a different approach.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
