Maryland Divorce Lawyer Blog
Last month, this blog discussed how Maryland law generally favors the award of rehabilitative alimony over indefinite alimony. Although the law favors rehabilitative alimony, that does not mean it is necessarily the proper remedy, as a new alimony case from Baltimore County highlights. As with all issues related to alimony and divorce, the law is complex and nuanced. That is why, if you have questions about alimony, you should consult a knowledgeable Maryland divorce lawyer to discuss your situation.
The spouses in the Baltimore County case separated in 2022 after 39 years of marriage. At the time of the couple’s divorce, both spouses were in their mid-60s. The husband worked as an operations manager overseeing an apartment complex, but desired to retire “within the next two years.”
The wife also worked during most of the marriage, but stopped in 2020 when she went on disability leave. The wife suffered from multiple maladies that affected her ability to use her hands and to sit or stand for long periods of time.
At the end of the couple’s divorce trial, the court awarded the wife $1,000 of rehabilitative alimony lasting for two years. Specifically, the judge stated that “the Court will award alimony for a period of 2 years. I think that ought to be enough to help [the wife] through the transition. So I will award an amount of $1,000 per month to roughly equalize… the income the parties overall will have.”
As we discussed last month, rehabilitative alimony (which the judge awarded here) is the type of alimony courts award in the majority of divorces. Indefinite alimony is appropriate only in “exceptional circumstances.”
Those “exceptional circumstances” arise when the recipient spouse “is not capable of progressing toward self-support.” Specifically, Family Law Section 11-106(c)(1) says that a court may award indefinite alimony if it finds that, “due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability, the party seeking alimony cannot reasonably be expected to make substantial progress toward becoming self-supporting.”
In this couple’s case, the appeals court concluded that the trial court’s findings of fact did not mesh with its ultimate decision to deny the wife’s indefinite alimony request. The trial judge concluded that the wife was not self-supporting (because her expenses exceeded her income) and that she had a disability “that prevented her from working.” What the trial court did not do, however, was explain how, given the wife’s disability and its likelihood to get worse rather than better, the wife had the potential to progress toward becoming self-supporting in two years.
Instead, the court said that $1,000 per month for two years was enough to help the wife through “the transition.” As the appellate court pointed out, though, “the trial court never explained what precisely’ the transition’ was or how [the wife] would be self-supporting or would have made substantial progress toward becoming self-supporting after ‘the transition.’”
Given the findings that the wife was disabled and not self-supporting, the absence of these additional findings required the reversal of the award of rehabilitative alimony.
For thoughtful and knowledgeable answers to your questions about alimony, get in touch with the Maryland family law attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC. Our team is here to guide you throughout the divorce process and ensure that you arrive at a fair and appropriate outcome. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to set up your consultation.