.webp)
When it comes to creating marital settlement agreements – or “separation agreements,” as they are frequently called – one of the best pieces of advice possible is that more specificity is better than less specificity. The reason is because you want your separation agreement to capture as many contingencies as possible; this way, you’ll be able to lessen the potentially negative impact of unforeseen events or circumstances. For example, if you include a provision for alimony in an agreement, you should be sure to reference the conditions which may permit modification within that provision. Alimony provisions aren’t complete when they simply set forth the amount and duration of the payments; they need to include other details as well, such as how the payments might be modified by the payor in the future.
The case of Tischer v. Lambeck (2021) is a relatively recent case in Maryland which shows the importance of accounting for modification within a separation agreement. Let’s examine the facts of this recent case in detail.
Outline of the Case Facts
The husband in this case was a successful anesthesiologist who typically earned over $30,000 per month. The wife had considerably less earning power, and less accumulated wealth, and so an alimony provision was included in the couple’s marital separation agreement. The agreement provided the wife with a monthly alimony payment of $6,000 per month for 47 months, and then a lesser monthly sum for another 88 months. The agreement also provided a modification clause which held that the husband could seek to modify the payment structure if his income fell by at least 15% percent of his typical yearly earnings, or if he became (involuntarily) unemployed.
Soon after the agreement was developed and the divorce was finalized, the husband became seriously ill; he was diagnosed with cancer, and was unable to maintain his typical earnings. His income fell by nearly $200,000 per year, and he sought modification of the alimony payments pursuant to the terms of the separation agreement.
Even when an agreement permits modification under certain conditions, modification is still something which must be ultimately approved by a Maryland court. And, in these situations, the burden is on the party moving for modification to show that a “substantial change” in circumstances should permit the request.
Ruling & Discussion
The husband was unsuccessful in his attempts to modify the payment amounts. One reason why the husband was unsuccessful is that the husband’s decline in income was essentially temporary: his income did take a short-term hit, but he was able to regain his health and rejoin his company at full-time capacity within 18 months. Furthermore, not only was his income decline temporary, he also received medical relief payments while he was working part-time (while also recuperating), and so his relief payments plus his part-time income were almost equal to his normal full-time income. Another point which tipped the scale in the wife’s favor is the fact that her earning capacity and net worth were both substantially lower than her former husband’s. Her earning capacity, at that time, was estimated to be approximately $50,000 per year. These facts were sufficient to defeat the husband’s motion for modification.
This shows that, even when the circumstances might seemingly allow for a modification in alimony, things are never certain, and the burden to actually modify a payment structure is not necessarily an easy hurdle to overcome.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If readers want more information on Maryland marital agreements, prenuptial agreements, the divorce process in general, or any other family law topic, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
