Blaine v. Blaine

• Decision Date: 01 September 1993
• Docket Number: No. 150,150
• Parties: Jack D. BLAINE v. Bryna J. BLAINE. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 49

336 Md. 49

646 A.2d 413

Jack D. BLAINE v. Bryna J. BLAINE.

No. 150, Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 26, 1994.

David S. Goldberg (David S. Goldberg, P.A., both on brief), Rockville, for petitioner.

Allen J. Kruger (Kruger, Kovelant & Hollmann, on brief), Laurel, for respondent.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL and RAKER, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

This case involves the proper application and interrelationship of Maryland Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol., 1993 Cum.Supp.), §§ 11-106 and 11-107 of the Family Law Article. Specifically, we must decide whether a party who was awarded, at the time of divorce, "rehabilitative" alimony for a fixed period may, upon its termination, be awarded alimony for an indefinite period based upon a judgment that circumstances now exist which would render a termination of alimony inequitable. We consider also whether the failure of the formerly dependent spouse to reach an expected income level, with or without a concomitant increase in the income of the other spouse, is properly a "circumstance" arising subsequent to the initial alimony award that would provide the basis for an indefinite extension of alimony.

Section 11-106 governs the determination of the amount and duration of an alimony award; it provides, in relevant part:

"(a) Court to make determination.--(1) The court shall determine the amount of and the period for an award of alimony.

* * * * * *

"(c) Award for indefinite period.--The court may award alimony for an indefinite period, if the court finds that:

"(1) due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability, the party seeking alimony cannot reasonably be expected to make substantial progress toward becoming self-supporting; or

"(2) even after the party seeking alimony will have made as much progress toward becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected, the respective standards of living of the parties will be unconscionably disparate."

Section 11-107 provides for the extension of a period of alimony, or the modification of the amount, in certain situations. It provides, in relevant part:

"(a) Extension of period.--[T]he court may extend the period for which alimony is awarded, if:

"(1) circumstances arise during the period that would lead to a harsh and inequitable result without an extension; and

"(2) the recipient petitions for an extension during the period."

I

Jack D. Blaine and Bryna J. Blaine were married on February 16, 1967. Early in the marriage, Ms. Blaine worked outside the home while her husband completed medical school, an internship and a residency. After the couple's two children were born, Ms. Blaine worked in the home as mother and homemaker while Dr. Blaine worked as a physician. Difficulties developed in the marriage, and the couple separated in April 1983.

On November 15, 1985, Ms. Blaine was granted an absolute divorce in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County; at that time she was also awarded alimony. As to the alimony award, the court (Beard, J.), in its Memorandum and Order, stated the following:

"[Dr. Blaine] is currently employed as a psychiatrist by the National Institute [of] Mental Health and earns an annual salary in excess of Sixty-Two Thousand Dollars ($62,000.00). For the past few years, [Ms. Blaine] has worked as a teacher's aid[e] during the children's school hours and earns approximately Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) annually. She is also presently seeking a master[']s degree, which she anticipates will be completed in two to three years.

* * * * * *

"Both [Dr. Blaine] and [Ms. Blaine] are in their middle years. Presently both parties have regular incomes, through [Ms. Blaine's] is disproportionately less than that of [Dr. Blaine]. The conduct of [Dr. Blaine] is the basis upon which the marriage has terminated. The parties have been married for eighteen years. At this time each party enjoys good health, both physically and mentally. The primary source of financial support for the maintenance of the family has been provided by [Dr. Blaine]. Based upon the entire record, the evidence and testimony produced by the parties and other witnesses at the hearings in this case with respect to the financial needs and resources of the parties, the ability of each to be wholly or partially self-supporting, the standard of living established during the marriage, the duration of the marriage, contributions, monetary and non-monetary of each party to the well-being of the family, the ... circumstances leading to the estrangement of the parties and ... the dissolution of the marriage, the age and physical condition of the parties, the health and well-being of the minor children, and having balanced the monetary award with the alimony, child support and fees granted, it is by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, this 15th day of November 1985,

* * * * * *

"ORDERED, that Jack D. Blaine pay to Bryna J. Blaine alimony in the amount of Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) per month for sixty (60) months beginning December 1, 1985 and on the 15th of each month thereafter, beginning January 15, 1986, and including November 15, 1990, or until the death of either party or the remarriage of Bryna J. Blaine...." ¹

Ms. Blaine timely filed a Motion to Extend and Increase Alimony. In her motion, she stated that Dr. Blaine was now earning more than $140,000 per year, while she was earning approximately $25,000 per year, and thus there was "still a vast disparity of income between the parties in favor of [Dr. Blaine]." She stated that she had "not been able to rehabilitate her condition" and therefore alimony should be extended and increased.

At a July 19, 1991 hearing before a domestic relations master, it was noted that in May 1988 Ms. Blaine had earned a master's degree in health promotion counseling from Trinity College, in Washington, D.C. As Ms. Blaine testified, health promotion counseling was a new field which involved counseling employees to maintain healthy lifestyles, for the purpose of reducing medical costs and, consequently, employers' health-related costs. Ms. Blaine testified that she had expected to make approximately $40,000 a year as a health promotion counselor.

Unfortunately, the career opportunities Ms. Blaine had expected upon graduation did not materialize. She testified that the field became static, because the economic recession caused employers to discontinue, reduce, or not expand such programs. She had made diligent efforts to find employment, applying for more than a hundred positions in health promotion counseling or general counseling. But she was unable to find a position that equaled or exceeded the income she was earning at the time from her full-time position with the Montgomery County Board of Education, supplemented by two part-time jobs, one teaching Hebrew school once a week, the other serving occasionally as a proctor for the administration of standardized tests. ² She stated, moreover, that her degree was not the equivalent of a Master of Social Work degree and that she was not qualified to conduct psychological evaluations and treatment. She also testified that she did not have teaching credentials and that she had no prospects for advancement in her current position.

In a December 3, 1991 Order, the master set forth a number of findings, including the following:

"3. [Ms. Blaine] made reasonable efforts to obtain employment in a field for which she trained. She also sought employment in counselling. She received no offer equal to the sum of her part-time jobs.

"4. [Ms. Blaine] has no potential for advancement in her present job.

* * * * * *

"7. [Dr. Blaine] has gross income of $136,750.00 per year before consideration of his tax shelters.

"8. [Ms. Blaine] has gross income of $31,000.00 per year from three jobs.

"9. The parties did not anticipate that [Ms. Blaine] would not be able to obtain a job in the field for which she was pursuing her Master's degree at the time of the parties' divorce.

* * * * * *

"11. [Ms. Blaine] has made as much progress toward becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected; the respective standards of living of the parties are unconscionably disparate.

"12. The lack of jobs in the health promotion counselling field was a change of circumstances and the inability of [Ms. Blaine] to obtain the anticipated income would lead to a harsh and inequitable result without an extension of alimony."

The master recommended that Dr. Blaine's obligation to pay alimony to Ms. Blaine in the previously awarded amount of $800.00 per month "be extended for an indefinite period." Dr. Blaine filed exceptions to the master's recommendations; the circuit court (Ryan, J.) denied the exceptions, affirmed the master's findings and recommendations, and ordered that the alimony payments of $800.00 per month be extended indefinitely.

Dr. Blaine appealed to the Court of Special Appeals; that court held that the circuit court was correct in concluding that there was a "change in circumstances" subsequent to the original alimony award justifying the extension of the award. Blaine v. Blaine, 97 Md.App. 689, 706, 632 A.2d 191 (1993). It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a "harsh and inequitable result" would occur without the extension. Id. at 706-07, 632 A.2d 191. The intermediate appellate court concluded that § 11-107 authorized an extension of alimony for an indefinite term even though indefinite alimony was not awarded at the time of divorce. Id. at 707, 632 A.2d 191. Finally, it held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Ms Blaine was entitled to indefinite alimony. Id. at 711, 632 A.2d 191.

Dr. Blaine filed a petition for certiorari on December 13, 1993 which we granted to consider the important issues presented in the case.

II

Dr. Blaine maintains that the trial court and the Court of Special Appeals erred...