Denial of Permanent Alimony Must be
Explained by Trial Judge
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland remanded a
case to the trial court with instructions for the judge to explain
why he had denied permanent alimony.
Erle Hammer Lee and Robert Paul Lee had been married
for 28 years when Mr. Lee left a goodbye note on the front door of
the marital residence. The parties were married in 1972 and during
the course of the marriage, Mr. Lee had four adulterous
relationships, and had transmitted a sexual disease to his wife.
Mrs. Lee filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery
and desertion. Among the issues in the case was whether Mrs. Lee
was entitled to indefinite alimony, or temporary rehabilitative
alimony. At the time of the divorce, Mrs. Lee was 50 years old, and
Mr. Lee was 54 years old.
During the marriage, Mr. Lee was the primary
breadwinner. He has an Associates Degree in industrial
engineering. He has a job as a plant manager earning $78,000 in
2000. He received medical insurance, employer contributions to a
401k plan, and other fringe benefits.
Mrs. Lee is a high school graduate and has worked
sporadically during the marriage at low paying jobs. At the time of
the divorce she worked at a framing store designing frames and
matting for works of art. Her income was $8.00 per hour, or $16,640
per year assuming that she works 40 hours per week, fifty two weeks
a year, with no vacations. Mrs. Lee does not receive health
insurance or other fringe benefits.
Mrs. Lee’s current monthly expenses were $2,600 or
about $14,400 more than her gross income. Mr. Lee’s current monthly
expenses were also approximately $2,600.
The trial judge found that Mrs. Lee did not have the ability at that
time to be wholly self-supporting, although she was partially
self-supporting. The trial judge refused to grant Mrs. Lee permanent
alimony, but rather awarded her $1,500 per month in rehabilitative
alimony for three years. Mrs. Lee appealed to the Court of Special
Appeals on the grounds that the judge’s failure to award permanent
alimony was reversible error.
The Court of Special Appeals vacated the alimony award because, among
other things, the trial judge failed to explain how he arrived at the
three-year duration of rehabilitative alimony. The Court stated: “.
. .he gave no clue as to why he believed Mrs. Lee could be
self-supporting in three years (assuming he did have that belief) or
what line of work he thought she could engage in to allow her to
become self-supporting. . . . In our view, . . .the duration of the
rehabilitative alimony appears to have been pulled out of ‘thin air’.”
Finding that, “The evidence in this case is strong enough to approach
- but not quite reach - the point where we can say that Mrs. Lee, as a
matter of law, is entitled to an award of indefinite alimony,” the
case was remanded to the trial court with instructions for the court
to (i) determine whether Mrs. Lee has the ability to be wholly
self-supporting, (ii) predict the amount Mrs. Lee could reasonably be
expected to earn, (iii) discuss the factor of disparity in incomes
between Mrs. Lee and her ex-husband, and (iv) determine whether an
award of indefinite alimony is justified.
Erle Hammer Lee
v. Richard Paul Lee,
No. 01308, September Term, 2001, in the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland, filed December 20, 2002.
[Return to Family Law
Update Page] |
