Spousal Maintenance Flashcards
Identify the 25-319 factors (a)
a. In proceeding for Disso, LS, or Disso where previously no Pers.J., the court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse for any of the following reasons if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance:
1. Lacks sufficient property to provide for reasonable needs OR
2. Is unable to be self sufficient through employment or custodian of a child who must be cared for OR
3. Has made a significant financial or other contribution to the education training vocational skills or career of the other spouse OR
4. Had a marriage of long duration and is of any age that may preclude gainful employment sufficient to provide OR
5. Has significantly reduced that spouse’s income or career opportunities for the benefit of the other spouse.
Just need ONE!
Identify the 25-319 (B) factors
b. Maintenance order shall be in an amount and for a period of time as the court deems just, without regard to marital misconduct, and after considering all relevant factors, including:
1. Standard of living established
2. Duration of the marriage
3. Age, employment history, earning ability and physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance
4. Ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet that spouse’s needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance
5. Comparative financial resources of the spouses, including comparative earning abilities in the labor market
6. Contributions of the seeking spouse to the other
7. Extent to which the spouse seeking maintenance has reduced that spouses income or career opportunities for the other’s benefit
8. Ability of both parties after the dissolution to contribute to the future educational costs of their mutual children
9. Financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to that spouse and that spouse’s ability to meet that spouse’s own needs
10. Time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment
11. Excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of property
12. Cost of health insurance for the seeking spouse
13. Actual damages and judgments from conduct that resulted in criminal conviction or either spouse in which the other spouse or a child was the victim
What is 25-319(c) and (d) say?
c. So long as both agree, can be non-modifiable
d. If no agreement in “C”, then the court maintains continuing jurisdiction
Must a court make detailed findings for SM?
Yes. just the relevant and KEY ones however.
If modifiable, what is the standard and who has the burden of proof?
ARS 25-327(A) – a spousal maintenance award “may be modified or terminated only on a showing of changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing.” The party seeking modification bears the burden of proving a change in circumstances.
Can SM payments continue even after the death of payor?
Yes. ARS 25-327(B) – Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree, the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated on the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance.
- Garlan v. Garlan – In the decree, the parties specifically agreed that H would keep W on her current health and medical insurance for her life (she had significant health issues that were costly to treat) and that he or his estate would pay. H sought modification of the SM payments. TC declined to terminate the SM or modify it
- Holding – affirmed. Husband admitted in his pleadings that the medical insurance related provision was expressly stated to be a term or spousal maintenance. Admissions in a pleading can bind a party. Further, 25-327(B) has the term “or” in it, which means that a court CAN order payments post-mortem of the payor.
Are life insurance proceeds subject to creditors?
Yes, See In re Estate of Gottier. Policy Owner/Husband murdered his Wife and daughter. H’s life insurance policy had the beneficiary as the “estate”. W’s parents filed tort claims against H’s estate for murder of W and grandchild. H’s Mother tried to argue the proceeds were exempt and the “estate” was a “third party” (language of the policy). COA affirmed TC ruling that because the terms of the policy state the proceeds go to the “estate” as the beneficiary, the life insurance award IS subject to creditors (in this case, tort claims).
Is an admission in a pleading that both people make binding as a rule 69 agreement?
Nope. Another Marwil case.
Sowards v. Sowards (March 8, 2022)(Memo)
Husband and Wife both agreed in their Petition for Dissolution and Response that “neither party was entitled to SM”. TC held that was a binding Rule 69 Agreement and also awarded H atty fees for Wife unreasonably seeking SM. (TC did give W SM at TO hearing, but at final trial found a binding Rule 69).
Holding – Although best practices dictates amending the Petition to allege SM, TC misapplied the law in finding this to be a binding Rule 69 Agreement.
