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

Published on
March 29, 2024
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq
Category
Divorce

In the past, we’ve discussed the fact that alimony (or “spousal maintenance,” as it’s referred to in certain jurisdictions) can take various forms. Although every alimony award involves payments made from one former spouse to the other, the precise amount of the award can vary immensely. Furthermore, when alimony is awarded in periodic payments, as opposed to a single lump sum, the duration of the payments can vary widely too and depends on if the court finds it to be rehabilitative or permanent. For instance, judges can award an ex-spouse monthly alimony payments for just a single year; or, depending on the circumstances, for an “indefinite period,” which essentially means forever.

In some situations, a former spouse is awarded monthly payments for a set period of time, but then wishes to convert those payments to an indefinite award. This was the case in Wiles v. Wiles (2017). Let’s take a closer look at this important case.

Overview of Wiles v. Wiles (2017)

The couple in this case divorced in 2014. At the time of the divorce, the judge granted the wife alimony for a limited duration. The wife received monthly alimony payments of $750, and those would expire after a set period of time. However, prior to the expiration of the payments, the ex-wife filed a motion to modify the alimony award so that the payments would be made indefinitely; she also sought an increase to the monthly amount. At the trial court, the judge granted her an indefinite extension, but kept the monthly payments the same. The ex-husband argued that the ex-wife had failed to show a change in circumstances sufficient to alter the alimony award. The case went to the appellate division for review.

Outcome & Discussion

The ex-husband lost at the appellate level, as the appellate division found adequate evidence to support the ex-wife’s contention regarding a change in circumstances. In order for an alimony award to be altered, there needs to be a “material” change in circumstances which justifies the alteration. How does a court know if a given change is “material” or not? There is no bright line rule, or foolproof method to know in every instance, but one metric which is commonly used is to look at whether a “harsh or inequitable” result would come about if the court failed to grant the alteration. In other words, a material change in circumstances is seen as a change which would end up causing a harsh or inequitable result if it were allowed to stand. In this case, the ex-wife stated that, when she made her initial request, she anticipated that her real estate career (as an agent) would rebound, and she would be making around $50,000 in the near future. But, in actuality, her career didn’t rebound as planned, and she ended up making less than half of this anticipated amount. She argued that, without a change to the alimony award, she would be left with precisely the harsh result which is frowned upon by the law. The court agreed.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information

If you want more information on modifications of alimony, or if you have a case which needs immediate attention, reach out to one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-202-3270.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Alimony, Modification, Period, Alimony, Spousal Maintenance, Divorce, Legal Disputes, Alimony Modification, Change in Circumstances, Legal Precedent, Appellate Division, Family Law, Court Rulings, Legal Procedures

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.