Maryland Court Clarifies When Indefinite Alimony Is Appropriate

In the case of K.B. v. D.B., the Maryland Court of Special Appeals revisited one of the most complex issues in family law: when should the court award indefinite alimony as opposed to a limited rehabilitative term? This decision reinforces Maryland’s preference for alimony that only spans a limited time. It also underscores that indefinite alimony remains an exceptional award, but isn’t, in most cases, the rule.

Background of the case 

In this case, the parties had been married for nearly two decades before their relationship went sour. During the marriage, the husband was the primary wage earner. His wife contributed to the marriage as a homemaker and caretaker for the family. When the couple separated, the trial court awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony for a fixed period of time. The wife appealed. She argued that her age, lack of comparable earning potential, and long-term economic dependence on her husband created a situation where she needed indefinite alimony under Maryland law.

Legal framework 

Under Maryland Family Law § 11-106, a court can award alimony for a fixed term or (in rare cases) indefinitely. Section 11-106(c) provides two specific situations in which indefinite alimony can be granted. Those are:

• If the spouse seeking support cannot reasonably be expected to make progress toward becoming self-supporting due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability.
• If, even after the supported spouse makes reasonable progress toward becoming self-supporting, the disparity in living standards would remain “unconscionably disparate”.

The courts in Maryland have interpreted these exceptions narrowly. In general, the rule favors rehabilitative alimony designed to help a dependent spouse become self-sufficient within a reasonable time period.

The appeal 

In this case, the Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court failed to properly analyze whether the wife’s post-divorce standard of living would be “unconscionably disparate” compared to her husband’s. The appellate court emphasized that judges need to make specific factual findings concerning the income of both parties, their employment prospects, and realistic post-divorce lifestyles.

While the court acknowledged the length of the marriage and the wife’s economic disadvantage, it also reiterated that indefinite alimony is an “extraordinary remedy”. The decision to grant it must rest on clear evidence that the financial imbalance is so severe that it shocks the conscience of the court. The appellate court thus remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the aforementioned principles.

Key takeaways from the case 

K.B. v. D.B. shows that the Maryland courts continue to see indefinite alimony as a last resort. The majority of divorcing spouses can expect a limited-term, rehabilitative alimony designed to foster independence as opposed to permanent dependence. However, the case also reminds trial judges that they must carefully weigh the economic realities of both parties. If there is a significant disparity in their living standards, an award of indefinite alimony may be appropriate.

Talk to a Bel Air, Maryland, Divorce Lawyer Today 

Schlaich & Thompson, Chartered, represent the interests of Maryland residents during their divorce. Call our Bel Air family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2020/2860s18.pdf