.webp)
Factual Overview of the Mullinax Case
Alimony can be a contentious issue in divorce cases. Some people believe that, no matter the circumstances, alimony awards are improper and that no one should be obligated to assist a former spouse financially after divorce. Others contend that alimony is proper because certain people make sacrifices during the marriage, which should be relevant in divorce. Whatever your position may be, there are currently multiple forms of alimony available under Maryland law. Parties can seek a certain form depending on their particular circumstances. In the case of Mullinax v. Mullinax (2022), a husband successfully prevented his former wife from obtaining indefinite or “permanent” alimony.Let’s look at this case in a bit of detail to understand better the conditions under which indefinite alimony might be granted in Maryland. In the Mullinax case, the husband was a successful account manager for a technology services company. And the wife was a successful professional in the aerospace industry. When the couple decided to divorce, the wife attempted to obtain a permanent or indefinite alimony award. The wife based her claim on the fact that the husband’s income was substantially larger than her own at the time of the divorce.When the couple divorced, the husband earned approximately $200,000 per year. While the wife earned approximately $102,000 per year as a teacher. The wife had acquired a teaching job as a way to create a better schedule for the purpose of raising their child.
The Standard of ‘Unconscionability’ in Indefinite Alimony on Mullinax Case
The wife asserted that the husband’s income was “unconscionably disparate” from her own. And that she should receive a permanent alimony award on that foundation. Unlike other states, Maryland doesn’t have a provision for automatic permanent alimony whenever a marriage lasts for a certain period. Instead, permanent alimony is awarded on one of two bases. (1) The condition (i.e., age, health, etc.) of the prospective recipient is such that permanent alimony is necessary because the recipient cannot become self-supporting. Or (2) the incomes of the two parties are unconscionably disparate such that the lower-earning spouse cannot be expected ever to achieve a comparable lifestyle.The wife argued that her case fell under the latter situation. She argued that the husband’s income, nearly twice that of her income, was sufficient to fall under the unconscionably disparate exception. The court rejected this argument at both the trial and appellate court levels. The court emphasized that a discrepancy is an insufficient evidence to prove unconscionability. The scope of the difference must be large. Unfortunately, no bright line rule or fixed ratio is used to determine if the discrepancy is unconscionable in a given situation.In this case, however, the court concluded that the wife’s overall situation didn’t necessitate permanent alimony. Partly because she had substantial assets aside from her regular income. In addition to her salary, she had retirement accounts amounting to nearly $1 million. Given that this was the case, the court determined that permanent alimony would’ve been inappropriate.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.
.png)
