.webp)
Facts of the Case
The case of Reynolds v. Reynolds (2014) is an interesting one for various reasons. One reason is because it shows how alimony awards are occasionally granted even in situations in which an award seems counter-intuitive. Let’s look at the facts of this case carefully.
The couple in this case were both Yale Law School-educated lawyers who met during law school and then married after graduation. The marriage took place in 1989, and the couple had three kids before separating (and then divorcing) in 2010. Although the wife worked during the early stages of the marriage, she quit working after the couple had children, but the husband continued to work throughout the marriage. At one point, the husband earned over $800,000 and the couple enjoyed an affluent lifestyle.
When the wife filed for divorce, she argued that she should receive alimony due to the gap between her unearned income and her necessities. The husband argued that alimony should be denied because of her “imputed earned income” based on her earning capacity as a trained lawyer. Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of the wife, and the appellate court affirmed this decision on appeal. The husband was ordered to pay alimony to make up the deficit between the wife’s unearned income and her financial needs, despite the fact that she was educated as a lawyer and had previously earned income in that profession.
The Issue of “Imputing Earned Income”
On the surface, it would seem as though the husband’s argument were viable: the wife, although not working at the time of the divorce itself, was a highly educated professional who apparently possessed considerable earning power. However, the logic of the court’s decision was based on a deeper reading of the circumstances. Although the wife was educated as a lawyer, she hadn’t practiced law in over two decades, and she also suffered from certain health problems which inhibited her earning potential. Hence, even though the husband contended that earned income could be imputed based on her potential, the fact of the matter is that she didn’t have the earning potential she would have possessed under different circumstances. In other words, on the surface she appeared to have a certain level of earning power, but the reality of the situation was quite different. Consequently, the court determined that alimony was proper under the circumstances.
Final Thoughts
Among other things, this case shows how even the most seemingly straightforward scenario can lead to unexpected results. Based on the wife’s qualifications alone, a casual observer would probably be quite surprised by the outcome of the case. But, again, there is always a need to dig deeper under the surface, and this is evidently something which wasn’t achieved by the husband’s attorney. The husband needed to consider all the relevant facts, which included the reality that the wife hadn’t worked in such a long period of time. When assessing alimony, courts will consider a wife array of factors, and the quality of a person's skills is a very relevant factor.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you’d like to learn more, get in touch with one of the leading family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-221-5276.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
