Court erred in increasing maintenance when it concluded that the starting point was an equal division of income. The fairness objective does not apply to a post-divorce situation, as maintenance is not to be viewed as a permanent annuity.
Multiple issues. See summary.
Trial court did not err by setting maintenance above 50% of total household income at the time of the divorce. While it is reasonable to consider an equal division of income as a starting point, the trial is not mandated to do so.
Reduction rather than termination of maintenance was an appropriate exercise of discretion where husband had attempted to avoid paying support by over withholding from his wages. However, court cannot condition modification on payment of arrears.
Limited term maintenance has various purposes. In this case, it was designed to limit the responsibility of the payor.
A settlement agreement which allows for maintenance to be modified only for increases violated public policy. Wife would only get increases without sharing in the risk and, unlike a stipulation which has a nonmodifiable fixed amount or term, this one-sided agreement invites litigation.
A substantial change in circumstances envisions a circumstance in which it would be unjust or inequitable to strictly hold an obligor to the judgment.
A substantial change in circumstances envisions a circumstance in which it would be unjust or inequitable to strictly hold an obligor to the judgment.
Multiple issues; Appellate and Supreme Court decisions. See full summary.
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying motion to extend maintenance when it considered the purposes for awarding maintenance for five years and decided the purposes had been fulfilled because the wife’s income had increased substantially. Husband’s failure to pay ordered child support and maintenance is not a ground for extension.