St. Cyr v. St. Cyr
137 A.3d 332
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Married 1994; Wife (47) was a stay-at-home primary caregiver since mid-1990s after earning a BA and prior salary ~$45,000; Husband (46) was the primary earner with executive-level income (~$200,000+).
- Wife had Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2009 (now in remission) and reported chronic fatigue, neuropathy, and depression; she had not worked for ~20 years and offered no medical or vocational expert evidence at trial.
- Parties separated in 2012 after Husband’s admitted adultery; divorce granted on adultery; Wife awarded sole legal custody of two minor children.
- Trial court imputed to Wife potential income of $1,733.33/month (40 hrs @ $10/hr), found Husband’s gross monthly income $18,614, and awarded rehabilitative alimony $1,800/month for 15 years; ordered Wife use-and-possession of the marital home until Feb 1, 2016; divided other assets and awarded attorney fees.
- On appeal Wife challenged (1) the imputation of income, (2) the amount/duration of alimony, and (3) the time limit for use and possession of the home. Court of Special Appeals affirmed most findings on income and home possession but vacated alimony (and related awards) and remanded for further factual findings and analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Wife’s Argument | Husband’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of income to Wife for alimony/child support | Wife argued she is physically unable to work and the court erred imputing income | Husband argued Wife voluntarily remained out of workforce and could earn at least $10/hr full-time | Court affirmed: imputation to $1,733.33/month not clearly erroneous given testimony, lack of corroborating medical evidence, and courtroom observations |
| Amount and duration of rehabilitative alimony ($1,800/mo for 15 years) | Wife argued award was inadequate and duration arbitrary; sought indefinite alimony or larger payment given disparity and marriage length | Husband argued Wife failed to prove entitlement to indefinite alimony and 15 years was generous | Court vacated alimony award and remanded: trial court failed to make required findings projecting Wife’s future earning growth, reasonable needs, and comparison of future standards of living at point of maximum rehabilitation; further evidence or expert may be needed |
| Use and possession of marital home until Feb 1, 2016 | Wife contended term was too short and alternatives were available | Husband argued continued occupancy imposed severe hardship given mortgage and future interest rate increases | Court affirmed use-and-possession order as a proper exercise of discretion balancing children’s interests, Wife’s transitional need, and Husband’s financial hardship |
| Interrelated awards (child support, monetary award, attorney’s fees) | Wife contended alimony insufficiency affected related awards | Husband relied on trial court’s overall division | Court vacated and remanded child support, monetary award, and attorney’s fees to permit re-evaluation after alimony is redetermined (current orders remain pendente lite) |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 216 Md. App. 205 (2014) (discusses imputation of potential income and voluntary impoverishment in family law context)
- Wills v. Jones, 340 Md. 480 (1995) (defines voluntary impoverishment standard)
- Tracey v. Tracey, 328 Md. 380 (1992) (explains rehabilitative purpose of alimony and standards for comparing post-rehab living standards)
- Solomon v. Solomon, 383 Md. 176 (2004) (discusses preference for rehabilitative/fixed-term alimony and appellate review standards)
- Boemio v. Boemio, 414 Md. 118 (2010) (explains meaning of "standards of living" and requirement to project future standards when considering indefinite alimony)
- Karmand v. Karmand, 145 Md. App. 317 (2002) (court may accept uncontested health evidence yet find it does not preclude ability to work)