Court Opinion

ID: 9820959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:43:14.459403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:47.035015
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 33] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 34] It is time to end the spousal support lottery.
[¶ 35] Robert and Tiffany Stock are relatively young people, 36 and 35 years old at the time of the divorce, and in good health. They were married for 14 years, and yet the court ordered they be yoked together, based on his life expectancy, for the next 42 years by a permanent award of spousal support. Unless she chooses to end it by remarriage, he will have a duty to pay spousal support for three times the length of the marriage, a payout of more than $2.5 million.
[¶ 36] While the payout here is in the millions, it could have been zero. Or it could have been for this Court’s stated preference of rehabilitative support, perhaps for three years, rather than for the lifetime ordered here.
[¶ 37] The result here could have been substantially different had the parties had a different judge, or possibly even the same judge on a different day.
[¶ 38] The Wall Street Journal has reported on efforts across the country to impose rational limits on spousal support. See Arian Campo-Flores, New Checks on Alimony Pay: Florida, Other States Move to End Lifetime Spousal Support, Sparking Debate, The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2013, at A3. The article began with a case parallel to this one:
When Hector Torres got divorced in 2001, he said he felt blindsided by the alimony a Florida judge ordered him to pay his ex-wife: $2,000 a month for the rest of his life. He was 34 years old at the time, meaning he faced the prospect of four or five decades of payments after a 13-year marriage.
“It was so mind-boggling to me,” said Mr. Torres, now 46, a Web designer in Miami.
Now he is hoping a bill moving through the Florida legislature will offer him relief. The measure, which was passed by the state Senate and awaits a vote in the House this week, generally would end permanent alimony and create formulas to determine the amount and duration of awards.
Id, The Journal reported that the Florida proposal would limit spousal support to one-half the duration of the marriage and would cap the amount at 38% of the payer’s monthly gross income for marriages of 20 years or more, with less for shorter marriages. Id.
[¶ 39] The Journal reported a similar law took effect in Massachusetts in 2012, and similar bills were pending in New Jersey, Connecticut, Colorado, and Oregon. The Journal noted the problems with *50“tethering” of ex-spouses and “wildly disparate” judgments:
Supporters [of reform] say alimony laws in many states tether former spouses indefinitely and are outdated at a time when women make up 47% of the labor force. They also complain that judges have too much leeway to fashion awards,- yielding wildly disparate judgments. '
“Divorce is supposed to separate your lives,” said Robin DesCamp, president of Oregon Alimony Reform, whose husband pays spousal support to his ex-wife. “Alimony does not allow you to do that. It keeps a woman dependent.”

Id

[¶ 40] “Alimony dates back to English common law and traditionally was based on the assumption that husbands had a duty to support their wives until death, according to Mary Kay Kisthardt, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.” Id
[¶ 41] In 1979, the United States Supreme Court said gender-based spousal support was unconstitutional. ■ Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979). Nevertheless, opponents of reform continue to make gender-based arguments. Wall Street Journal, supra..
[¶ 42] Although currently successful family-law lawyers may be expected to oppose reform of the present expensive system, Massachusetts’ reform was supported by its state bar association and created detailed formulas for alimony awards. Id
“It has become a model for states all over the country,” said Steve Hitner, president of Massachusetts Alimony Reform. “We’re getting a certain amount of consistency and predictability from courts.”
Id Reform of our spousal support law can include exceptions for medical disability while bringing rationality and consistency.
[¶ 43] I have a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made here, and I would reverse and remand for that reason. But the spousal support lottery can best be addressed structurally by timely legislation.
[¶ 44] Dale V. Sandstrom