Spousal Support – What The Arizona Court of Appeals Is Thinking

More about Naseman.

As we know, Husband and Wife, married 11 years at time of the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage, initially resided in Massachusetts.  However during the third year of their marriage Husband purchased property in Arizona and the parties subsequently moved here. Prior to the marriage, Husband who had accumulated substantial wealth and property was already retired; however, 6 years into the marriage, he returned to work. Wife owned her own business prior to the marriage, a bridal shop in Massachusetts, which was sold 3 years prior to the filing of the action. She then operated a business that provided cellulite reduction treatments and facials. (Wife was obviously savvy choosing to get into this line of business in Arizona.)  Trial was held in 2006. The Arizona family court awarded Wife spousal maintenance of $4,200 per month for 6 and ½ six years. Additionally, the court explained that rather than increasing Wife's spousal maintenance, it would allow Wife to keep furniture she removed from the Arizona home. On appeal Husband contests the amount and duration of spousal maintenance awarded.

Spousal Maintenance

In this case, the Family Court did list all of the factors pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-319(B), issued findings under each, and concluded spousal maintenance of $4,200 per month for 6 and ½ years was appropriate because it would “allow an adjustment for Wife to raise her own income, or to moderate her return to a more standard lifestyle.”

Regarding Wife's financial needs, Wife presented two affidavits of financial information which indicated a range of monthly expenses from $5,000 to $6,200. At trial, she testified her expenses were approximately $5,000 per month. She also testified she had extensive debt. The court determined Wife was still building her current business and noted she currently makes only $150 per month. Additionally, the court found Husband had sufficient earnings to assist Wife, Wife's property will be modest, and Wife cannot live without assistance while she works on improving her business. The Court held that Wife's reasonable needs were sufficiently established through testimony and documentary evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion taking this evidence into account when awarding $4,200 per month in spousal maintenance.  The duration of the maintenance award was also supported since a vocational expert's report indicated it would take more than 5 years for Wife to reach an income level that would enable her to experience a reasonable standard of living.

Husband argued on appeal that the parties' incomes contradict the amount and duration of the maintenance award. The Court disagreed finding that Husband's annual income averaged $250,000 while Wife’s $150.00 per month.

Further, the court appropriately considered evidence of the parties' luxurious lifestyle while married under A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(1). Wife explained that her lifestyle diminished significantly since the petition for dissolution. Husband did not believe his standard of living should be affected by the dissolution because his lifestyle predated the marriage and he funded the parties' way of life during marriage.

As Husband points out, however, the high standard of living was not solely a product of the marriage because the first 5 years of marriage were funded by Husband's sole and separate property. When Husband returned to work, the parties' lifestyle was funded by his wages as well as his separate property. Notwithstanding Husband's significant contributions of separate property, the court properly considered the relevant statutory factors, noting the marriage lasted 13 years and Wife's decision not to work was a “mutual decision” to accommodate the parties' lifestyle. Further, Wife reduced her earning ability by giving up the opportunity to develop her bridal business in Massachusetts because of the marriage and Wife would undergo a significant change in lifestyle. Nevertheless, the spousal maintenance award does not give Wife anything close to the luxurious lifestyle she had.

Household Furtniture & Its Effect on Spousal Support Award

Finally, although Wife admitted the furniture was Husband's sole and separate property, Wife requested additional maintenance if she was ordered to return the furniture. The family court was held to have properly exercised its discretion by noting Wife would have additional expenses if she had to return the furniture she was using.