Lorenz v. Lorenz
Decision Date | 11 June 2009 |
Docket Number | 506386. |
Citation | 63 A.D.3d 1361,2009 NY Slip Op 04797,881 N.Y.S.2d 208 |
Parties | PAMELA LORENZ, Respondent, v. WILLIAM LORENZ, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Work, J.), entered June 19, 2008 in Ulster County, ordering, among other things, equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, upon a decision of the court.
In October 2006, after more than 33 years of marriage, plaintiff commenced this divorce action. There are two emancipated children of the marriage. After a bench trial, at which time both parties were 54 years of age, Supreme Court, among other things, equally distributed the marital property and awarded maintenance to plaintiff in the amount of $500 per week, retroactive to September 4, 2007 and until such time as plaintiff can draw full Social Security benefits, apparently when she becomes 66. Defendant appeals.
The principal issues raised by defendant on appeal focus on Supreme Court's award of maintenance. Initially, defendant asserts that the court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance because plaintiff is capable of being self-supporting and, in the alternative, that the amount and duration were excessive. In maintenance determinations "the amount of earnings necessary to enable the recipient to become self-supporting must be determined with some reference to the standard of living of the parties, as well as the earning capacity of each party; and these factors carry more weight in a marriage of long duration" (Garvey v Garvey, 223 AD2d 968, 970 [1996]). Here, in fashioning its award, the court considered each of the relevant statutory factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]), including the parties' incomes, their future earning capacity, and the long duration of the marriage.
The testimony of the parties and their 2006 joint income tax returns provide ample record proof to support Supreme Court's conclusion that defendant's annual income was in excess of $100,000 and plaintiff's income was upwards of $20,000. Whereas defendant is in good health, plaintiff has a back problem—which recently required surgery—and a heart arrhythmia ailment, each of which impacts negatively on her future earning capacity as a self-employed hairdresser. While defendant was building his skills and a lucrative career, plaintiff was devoting a good portion of her time and talent tending to the needs of their children and attending to the family's domestic needs. Indeed, although the purpose of maintenance is to provide temporary support while the recipient develops the skills and experience necessary to become self-sufficient (see Garvey v Garvey, 223 AD2d at 970), self-sufficiency "is not always possible" (Wheeler v Wheeler, 12 AD3d 982, 983 [2004]), and we find ample record evidence to support the court's conclusion that plaintiff's potential to become self-sufficient was very low. Moreover, the fact that plaintiff will eventually obtain her share of the marital assets is not a bar to an appropriate period of maintenance (see Kay v Kay, 302 AD2d 711, 712 [2003]), especially where, as here, Supreme Court did not favor plaintiff in its 50-50 distribution of the marital property.
Further, we find that the amount of the maintenance award is within defendant's means and appropriately crafted to meet plaintiff's needs, providing some assurance that she will be able to maintain their predivorce standard of living. Supreme Court found that plaintiff will now be required to pay for her own health insurance, estimated to cost between $350 and $500 per month, and, in the likely event she will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCaffrey v. McCaffrey
...seeDomestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a]; McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 70 A.D.3d 1129, 1134, 895 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2010];Lorenz v. Lorenz, 63 A.D.3d 1361, 1363, 881 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2009];Gaglio v. Molnar–Gaglio, 300 A.D.2d 934, 939, 753 N.Y.S.2d 185 [2002] ). The record demonstrates that the parties' ......
-
Burns v. Burns
...be assumed. Scibetta v. Scibetta–Galluzzo, 134 A.D.2d 823, 824, 521 N.Y.S.2d 584 (4th Dept.1987). Finally, in Lorenz v. Lorenz, 63 A.D.3d 1361, 881 N.Y.S.2d 208 (3rd Dept.2009), the court, referencing a judicial determination on maintenance, added that any language referencing the remarriag......
-
Scarpace v. Scarpace
...[2009] [citations omitted]; see Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 50–51, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749 [1995]; Lorenz v. Lorenz, 63 A.D.3d 1361, 1362, 881 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2009]; Quinn v. Quinn, 61 A.D.3d 1067, 1071, 876 N.Y.S.2d 720 [2009]; Dowd v. Dowd, 58 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 874 N.Y.S.2d 26......
-
Alleva v. Alleva
...Security retirement benefits or remarries ( see Penna v. Penna, 29 A.D.3d 970, 972, 817 N.Y.S.2d 313; see also Lorenz v. Lorenz, 63 A.D.3d 1361, 1363–1364, 881 N.Y.S.2d 208; Taylor v. Taylor, 300 A.D.2d 298, 751 N.Y.S.2d 282). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providen......