Murphy v. Holland, No. 2020AP1802 (2021): Termination of maintenance when husband turns 65 is affirmed as within trial court’s discretion. The trial court considered all the statutory factors and the maintenance wife had already received, the retirement accounts transferred to her, and her life style including a “high end” condo in Mexico. The marital standard…
Husband’s reduction in income due to retirement at age 57 was voluntary and court can impute income based upon earning capacity to supplement his retirement income.
No one can be compelled work after the usual retirement age of 65 or ordered to pay the same level of spousal support as when he was employed.
Capital gains are not income for purposes of alimony modification if those gains do not constitute a steady stream of revenue.
Retirement at age 65 strongly weighed in favor of a finding of good faith, but was not conclusive proof.
When a party to a divorce agrees to a certain disposition of the parties’ financial obligations and the agreement is made a part of the judgment of the court, the party is thereafter estopped from seeking release from the terms of the agreement.
Spousal support should not be terminated based on voluntary retirement at age 65, although reduction was appropriate. No rebuttable presumption hat alimony is terminated when spouse reaches customary retirement age.
Husband not entitled to alimony reduction simply because he is 67 years old. No bright line rule allowing retirement at a particular age.
Evidence was insufficient to establish that former wife was engaged in “cohabitation” with a male within meaning of marital settlement agreement, as required for modification of alimony where male paid rent and there was no intimate relationship.
Modification of maintenance requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances.