In this divorce, the trial court divided ownership of Alabama Shopping Center (ASC), which was the parties’ primary source of income. ASC provided both parties with equal incomes post-divorce. However, the trial court then awarded Wife $4,000 indefinite monthly spousal support. Husband appealed, arguing that there was no evidence that he had a greater earning capacity than Wife and that less (or no) support should be awarded. The Court of appeals agreed, and said that without evidence of a greater earning capacity, the trial court’s award of $4,000 was purely speculative and therefore inappropriate. Although the court may make an award of spousal support based on a forecast of Husband’s income, the forecast itself cannot be based on speculation but must be based on reliable estimates of future income. Further, Husband argued that support cannot be higher than what he could afford to pay. Wife argued that spousal support was still appropriate, because of Wife’s health issues and more limited work experience, even though Husband was currently retired. The Court found that there was enough evidence to justify some spousal support, and modified support to $400 per month indefinitely.
Read the case, decided on 04/20/2011: Hendgen v. Hendgen
Are you seeking to modify spousal support? One of our experienced divorce lawyers can help!
