Marriage Is An 'Adaptive Economic And Social Partnership'; Even After You Have Been Divorced For 19 Years. How Retirement Impacts Present Alimony Obligations

In the recent matter of Perreault v. Perreault, P.P. and R.P. were divorced in 1996, after 22 years of marriage. Following a hearing, the Court ordered R.P. to pay permanent alimony in the amount of $500.00 per week. Neither the April 29, 1996 Final Judgment of Divorce, nor the August 7, 1996 Order provided that alimony would be of limited duration or would terminate upon R.P.'s retirement. P.P. also received $28,239.48 or 50% of the marital share of R.P.'s federal pension.

At the time of the divorce, R.P. was employed by the Veterans Administration Hospital and earned approximately $118,000.00 per year. At the age of 55, he retired from this job and began collecting his federal pension. After R.P.'s retirement, he continued working for other companies and in 2007 he began a consulting business with his current wife. In November 2013, he retired at the age of 65.

In April 2014, R.P. filed a motion to terminate his alimony obligation to P.P. based upon his retirement, or in the alternative, to reduce his alimony obligation. R.P. certified that he had gross income in 2013 of $96,985 derived solely from his pension, and from that amount, $28,239.48 was paid to P.P. pursuant to the Court's August 7, 1996 Order. R.P. argued that only $25,000.00 of the remaining amount, $68,745.52 ($96,985.00-$28,239.48 = $68,745.52), could be considered for alimony purposes, and this amount was insufficient to justify an alimony award. Additionally, R.P.'s Case Information Statement showed that he had no debt, $9,891 in monthly expenses (although slightly reduced by the trial Court) and $823,000 in assets.

The trial Court determined that R.P.'s income had decreased, but that he had accumulated substantial post-judgment assets separate from his current wife from which he could pay alimony. Of the $823,000 in assets listed on R.P.'s Case Information Statement, the trial Court reduced this number by more than one-half to account for joint ownership with his current wife. The trial Court also recognized that with regard to R.P.'s pension, $40,505.04 was representative of the non-marital portion, not $25,000.00 as set forth by R.P. Additionally, the trial Court noted that R.P.'s future social security payments and his current wife's income would assist him in paying his expenses, thereby increasing his ability to pay alimony. In contrast, P.P. would be in "dire straits" without alimony. In conclusion, the trial Court reduced R.P.'s alimony from $500.00 per week to...