Opinion ID: 2015196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Court-Imposed Maintenance

Text: Before the adoption of the Dissolution Act, Pub.L. No. 297, 1973 Ind. Acts 1585, Indiana courts were expressly authorized to award alimony in divorce decrees, if the award would be just and proper. Ind.Code § 31-1-12-14 (1971); Burns Ind. Stat. § 3-1217 (1933); 2 Ind.Rev.Stat. pt. 2, ch. 4, § 19, at 237 (1852). The purpose of such an award was to settle property rights, not to provide for spousal support. Shula v. Shula, 235 Ind. 210, 132 N.E.2d 612 (1956); see also Dissette v. Dissette, 208 Ind. 567, 196 N.E. 684 (1935)(indicating alimony is related to wife's elective share of husband's estate upon his death); Musselman v. Musselman, 44 Ind. 106 (1873)(indicating alimony award is given in lieu of dividing husband's real and personal property). [7] The 1973 act retained the option of settling property rights with lump sum or installment payments. Ind. Code Ann. § 31-1-11.5-11(b)(2) (West Supp. 1995) (retaining just and proper standard). In the Dissolution Act of 1973, Indiana edged away from the strict policy against spousal support. For the first time courts were expressly authorized to award maintenance. [8] Nevertheless, the authorization was quite narrow. The Civil Code Study Commission, which in 1970 drafted a proposed Dissolution of Marriage Act, recommended a modest but significant provision for spousal maintenance: SEC. 210. Maintenance. (a) ... [T]he court may grant a ... maintenance order[] for either spouse only if it finds (1) that the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient income and property to provide for his reasonable financial needs and (2) that the spouse seeking support is unable to support himself through employment or is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home. (b) The maintenance order shall be in such amount and for such periods of time as the court may deem just.... Report of the Indiana Civil Code Study Commission: Proposed Dissolution of Marriage Act § 210 (1970) [hereinafter Proposed Dissolution Act]. The proposed section also enumerated six factors for a court to consider when setting the amount and conditions of maintenance once it had determined that a spouse met the two statutory prerequisites. Id. The proposed section was taken almost verbatim from the corresponding section of a proposed uniform act. See Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act § 308 (1970). In the General Assembly, the maintenance proposal met with strong resistance. The House of Representatives removed all references to maintenance. Stephen R. Pennell, Note, Alimony in Indiana Under No-Fault Divorce, 50 Ind. L.J. 541, 547 (1975). As finally enacted, the Dissolution Act contained only an extremely narrow provision for incapacity maintenance in § 9(c): The court may make no provision for maintenance except that when the court finds a spouse to be physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of such incapacitated spouse to support himself or herself is materially affected, the court may make provision for the maintenance of said spouse during any such incapacity, subject to further order of the court. Dissolution Act, § 1, 1973 Ind. Acts at 1590 (codified at Ind.Code Ann. § 31-1-11.5-9(c) (West 1979) (amended 1981, 1984, 1985)). In 1984, the General Assembly revised the maintenance provision and slightly expanded the grounds upon which courts could order maintenance. P.L. 150-1984, §§ 1-2, 1984 Ind. Acts 1290, 1290-92. Section 9(c) now provides that [t]he court may order maintenance in final decrees ... after making the findings required under section 11(e). Ind. Code Ann. § 31-1-11.5-9(c) (West Supp. 1995). The original provisions for incapacity maintenance were transferred to § 11(e) and two additional grounds for maintenance were added. See Ind.Code Ann. § 31-1-11.5-11(e) (West Supp.1995). Thus, while the General Assembly began moving away from the previously strict policy against court-imposed spousal maintenance in 1973, it has not authorized as broad a grant of power to courts as the Study Commission proposed in 1970. In ordering maintenance today, an Indiana court is restricted to three, quite limited options. First, it may grant incapacity maintenance if it finds a spouse to be physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of the incapacitated spouse to support himself is materially affected. Ind. Code Ann. § 31-1-11.5-11(e)(1). Second, a court may order caregiver maintenance if it finds that a spouse must forego employment in order to care for a child with a physical or mental incapacity. Id. § 31-1-11.5-11(e)(2). Third, a court may order rehabilitative maintenance for no more than three years if it finds that a spouse needs support while acquiring sufficient education or training to get an appropriate job. Id. § 31-1-11.5-11(e)(3). Where none of these circumstances exist, a court may not order maintenance without the agreement of the parties. In re Marriage of McManama, 272 Ind. 483, 399 N.E.2d 371 (1980); In re Marriage of Coomer, 622 N.E.2d 1315 (Ind.Ct.App.1993). This policy reflects a clear legislative intent to retain fairly strict limits on the power of courts to order maintenance without the consent of the parties. See Liszkai v. Liszkai, 168 Ind.App. 532, 343 N.E.2d 799, (1976).