In Re Marriage of Hommel v. Hommel
(1) Income from investments awarded to spouse as part of an equal property division do count towards maintenance. (2) In calculating payor’s income, interest on moneys owed in settlement should be included.
(1) Income from investments awarded to spouse as part of an equal property division do count towards maintenance. (2) In calculating payor’s income, interest on moneys owed in settlement should be included.
Annual interest from retirement fund may be included in calculating ex-husband’s income for maintenance modification purposes. Court did not give full consideration to the support objective of maintenance by reducing maintenance to put the payor in a better position at the expense of the payee.
Lottery proceeds may be a change in financial circumstance to be considered in modifying maintenance. However, because the purpose of maintenance is to permit payee to enjoy the same standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, court abused its discretion in determining amount of increase.
Nature and amount of current income-producing assets should be freshly examined together with any new post-divorce income in modification action. Trial court must consider the reasons that form the basis for the allocation of assets in the original division of estate.
The portion of husband’s pension benefits representing compensation for post-divorce employment and therefore not counted in the property division at divorce should be treated as an income stream for maintenance.
Court may change maintenance only upon a positive showing of a change in circumstances. The burden rests with the party seeking the change.
Trial court properly reduced, rather than terminated maintenance, where maintenance was indefinite and husband retired. Court’s adoption of equalization of income approach was proper in light of the long-term marriage of the parties.
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.