The prince ran off with his secretary.  The princess sued him for divorce based on adultery and desertion.   She got custody, child support, alimony, lawyer fees, the castle and half the kingdom.  And then they lived happily ever after.

In Lee v. Andochick, discussed in “Going Broke on 1.76 Million a Year”, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed a $10,000 a month alimony award because the numbers just didn’t add up.  But the Court also found the trial judge erred in awarding indefinite alimony on the basis of unconscionable disparity.

Section 11-106(c)(2) of the Maryland Family Law Article provides that alimony may be awarded indefinitely if the court finds that even after the party seeking alimony will have made as much progress of  becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected, the respective standards of living of the parties will be unconscionably disparate.

Mr. Lee made $1,760,282 and Dr. Andochick made $267,000 in 2006.  But the appeals court said a disparity in income is not the same as a disparity in standards of living.

Dr. Andochick, the court said, did not explain or prove how her standard of living would be unconscionably disparate from Mr.  Lee’s if she did not receive alimony.  The court also said the trial judge did not discuss his analysis of why the respective standards of living of the parties would be unconscionably disparate.  Therefore the case was sent back to the trial judge to make further findings.

If you think that money buys happiness, or a little more money will solve your problems, I can assure you that more money will bring a whole new set of problems into your life.

Just ask Keith Lee and Lori Andochick of Frederick County, Maryland, who married in 1993, separated in 2004 and were divorced in 2007.   As a partner in the investment firm of Brown Capital of Baltimore, Maryland, Mr. Lee made $1,760,282 in 2006.  Dr. Andochick, a dentist, made $267,000 that year.

The Court awarded Dr. Andochick $10,000 a month in spousal support, $15,000 a month in child support for their two children, $2,200 a month in other costs for the children, a monetary award payable at $250,000 a year for five years and attorney fees.

Mr. Lee appealed the alimony award.  The Court of Special Appeals reversed the case.  The Court calculated the annual numbers on Mr. Lee like this:

Gross Income                         $1,760.282
Less Taxes                                ($762,282)
Less Debt Obligations             ($636,588)
Child Support and Alimony*  ($278,400)
Monetary Award                      ($250,000)

Total                                         ($166,988)

In other words, Mr. Lee would have had to borrow about $167,000 a year just to make ends meet and even then he would have nothing left over for food and personal expenses.  The Appeals Court found that the trial judge “did not do the math”.

* see comments

On the twelfth day of Christmas
The Good Court gave to me:
Twelve Years of Alimony
Eleven Grand for Attorneys
Ten Shares of Stock
Nine Options Vesting
Eight Years of Child Support
Seven Rooms of Furniture
Six Sets of China
Five Golden Rings
Four QDRO’s
Three Bank Accounts
Two Used Cars
and Half of the Remaining Equity.

Alimony in Maryland terminates automatically on remarriage, but not on cohabitation, unless the parties agree otherwise. There are various ways to “agree otherwise”. Here are some sample cohabitation clauses from the case of Gordon v. Gordon, 342 Md. 294, 301-303 (Md. 1996).

1. This is the clause that was in dispute in the Gordon case:

Husband shall pay to Wife as alimony the sum of $ 6,000 per month in advance, commencing on the first day of December, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter. The said payments shall terminate upon the death of the Husband, the death of the Wife, the remarriage of the Wife, or at such time as the Wife reaches the age of 59 1/2, whichever first occurs. The said payments shall also terminate in the event the Wife resides with any unrelated man without the benefit of marriage for a period continuing for beyond sixty (60) consecutive days.

2. This clause defines remarriage to include cohabitation:

For the purposes of this agreement the term “remarriage of the Wife” shall be defined as either a ceremonial civil or religious marriage or a situation whereby the wife habitually and continuously resides with another man without benefit of a marriage ceremony for a period of 120 days consecutively or 120 days cumulatively within a sixteen-month period.

S. SCHLISSEL, 2 SEPARATION AGREEMENTS AND MARITAL CONTRACTS § 19.28, at 511 (1986 & 1992 Cum. Supp.).

3. Cohabitation as a separate terminating event:

The payor shall pay to the payee, for her support, maintenance, or alimony, the sum of dollars per week, until the death of either party, or the remarriage of the payee, or the payee’s cohabitation with another person, whichever event shall first occur. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “cohabitation” includes any shared occupancy of a dwelling, whether or not the occupants engage in sexual relations.

A. LINDEY & L. PARLEY, 1 LINDEY ON SEPARATION AGREEMENTS AND ANTENUPTIAL CONTRACTS 15A-6 (1995) (Form 15A.05) (emphasis added). See also S. GREEN & J. LONG, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LAW AGREEMENTS 372-73 (1984 & 1994 Cum. Supp.) (Appendix 3).

4. Another example:

Support shall continue until the death of the husband, the death of the Wife, her remarriage, or her cohabitation with another person with whom she has a romantic relationship.

5. Requiring a financial relationship between the cohabitants as a condition for terminating support:

The Wife shall also be deemed to have remarried for the purpose of this Article if she shall live with an unrelated adult male to whom she is not legally married in the same abode in a situation where the parties are, in effect, living as Husband and Wife and the unrelated adult male should be supporting, or contributing to the support, of the Wife.

SCHLISSEL, supra, § 19.31, at 513.

6. Requiring a common residence for a specific length of time to establish cohabitation:

Remarriage shall be defined so as to include her cohabitation or residing with an unrelated male for either thirty (30) consecutive days or ninety (90) days in any one hundred eighty (180) day period.

TURNBULL & WASE, supra, at 256.

Even when you have a cohabitation clause, disputes can still arise. In the Gordon case, the wife lived with another man for 60 days, but the court of appeals sent the case back to the trial court to determine if that was really cohabitation or not.