Also known as: spousal supports · alimony
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A financial award requiring one former spouse to make periodic payments to the other for maintenance after the dissolution of marriage. The award rests on the recipient's need and the payor's ability to pay.
Stella Shapiro retained counsel to pursue a divorce and spousal support claim against Sean Steele. The lawyer proposed a fee equal to twenty percent of any support awarded. The arrangement violates professional conduct rules because the payment depends on the amount of spousal support obtained.
Serena Soto and Skylar Sullivan signed a premarital agreement that eliminated spousal support upon divorce. After ten years of marriage Serena petitions for modification. The court may enforce the elimination clause under the uniform act governing marital property agreements.
Sophia Singh and Samantha Stone executed a marital agreement waiving all spousal support. Upon divorce Sophia qualifies for public assistance. The court orders Samantha to pay support sufficient to restore Sophia's eligibility for benefits.
Stella Shapiro stopped receiving funds from Sean Steele after he left the marital home. She petitions the court for support during the pending divorce. The court awards payments based on her need and his ability to pay.
Serena Soto lived with Skylar Sullivan for several years without marrying. After separation she seeks support under an implied agreement. The court applies contract principles to determine whether support is owed.
In October 1964, plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement. While the parties lived together, they would combine their efforts and earnings. They would share equally any and all property accumulated as a result of their efforts, whether individual or combined. They further agreed to hold themselves out to the general public as husband and wife. Plaintiff would render her services as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook to defendant. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff agreed to give up her lucrative career as an entertainer and singer. She did so to devote her full time to defendant as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook. In return, defendant agreed to provide for all of plaintiff's financial support and needs for the rest of her life. The parties lived together from October 1964 through May 1970. During this period, as a result of their efforts and earnings, they acquired in defendant's name substantial real and personal property. This included motion picture rights worth over $1 million. In May 1970, defendant compelled plaintiff to leave his household. He continued to support plaintiff until November 1971 but thereafter refused to provide further support. Plaintiff brought this action asserting two causes of action. The first, for declaratory relief, asked the court to determine her contract and property rights. The second sought to impose a constructive trust upon one half of the property acquired during the course of the relationship. Defendant answered the complaint after an unsuccessful demurrer. Following extensive discovery and pretrial proceedings, the case came to trial. When the case was called for trial, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint. The trial court treated defendant's motion to dismiss as one for judgment on the pleadings. This was augmented by a stipulation that defendant's marriage to Betty Marvin did not terminate until the filing of a final decree of divorce in January 1967. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff moved to set aside the judgment. She asked leave to amend her complaint to allege that she and defendant reaffirmed their agreement after the divorce became final. The trial court denied the motion. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment.
View caseSophia Singh obtained a Nevada divorce that ended the marriage but left a New York support order intact. Sean Steele challenges enforcement of the support award in New York. The court holds that the support obligation survives the foreign divorce decree.
The parties were married in 1937 and lived together in New York until 1942 when the husband left the wife. There was no issue of the marriage. In 1943 she brought an action against him for a separation. He entered a general appearance. The court, finding that he had abandoned her, granted her a decree of separation and awarded her $180 per month as permanent alimony. In January 1944 he went to Nevada where in 1945 he instituted an action for divorce. She was notified of the action by constructive service but entered no appearance in it. In May, 1945, the Nevada court, finding that petitioner had been a bona fide resident of Nevada since January 30, 1944, granted him an absolute divorce on the ground of three years continual separation, without cohabitation. The Nevada decree made no provision for alimony, though the Nevada court had been advised of the New York decree. Prior to that time petitioner had made payments of alimony under the New York decree. After entry of the Nevada decree he ceased paying. Thereupon respondent sued in New York for a supplementary judgment for the amount of the arrears. Petitioner appeared in the action and moved to eliminate the alimony provisions of the separation decree by reason of the Nevada decree. The Supreme Court denied the motion and granted respondent judgment for the arrears. The judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division and then by the Court of Appeals. This case is here on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York.
View caseA court may modify or eliminate spousal support pursuant to a premarital or marital agreement. If the elimination causes a party to qualify for public assistance, the court may require the other party to provide support sufficient to avoid that eligibility.
The court considers the recipient's need for funds and the payor's ability to pay. The award may also reflect the duration of the marriage and the standard of living established during the marriage.
A lawyer may not enter into a fee agreement contingent on the securing of a divorce or on the amount of alimony or support awarded. The prohibition applies even when the underlying claim is otherwise permissible for contingent fees.
A divorce decree from one state may terminate the marital status but leave intact a support order entered by another state. Full faith and credit does not require recognition of the foreign decree as to the support obligation.