Spousal Maintenance: Revisiting Duration
In his Divorce Law column, Alton L. Abramowitz discusses the "advisory guidelines" for the duration of spousal maintenance that become effective next month, writing that it is now time for attention to be turned to the development of a particularized, fact-based approach to determining duration that avoids rules of thumb or custom or arbitrary formulas that are not related to economic reality if the courts are going to truly carry out their mandate to award maintenance "in such amount as justice requires."
December 14, 2015 at 09:44 PM
10 minute read
In every divorce in which spousal maintenance and support is an issue to be resolved, whether by agreement of the parties or by order of the court in which a divorce action is pending, there is a constant refrain. On the one hand, the spouse in need of support asks with trepidation, “For how long will I receive alimony?” And, on the other hand, the more affluent spouse invariably asks with a strong tinge of anger in his or her voice, “When will I be able to stop paying support to that person?”
Ever since July 19, 1980, the date on which the Equitable Distribution Law became effective and the concept of “rehabilitative maintenance” entered the legal lexicon of matrimonial lawyers throughout New York State, the answers to these questions have been infused with guesstimates, cautions, rules of thumb, and other imprecise speculation based on anecdotal experiences and expectations. More often than not, the attorney answers, “I can't give you a prediction,” or “Don't hold me to it, but a rough rule of thumb is half the length of the marriage downstate or a third of the length of the marriage upstate,” etc. To say that answers such as these are anxiety-producing and a major source of contention and/or disappointment for both spouses, would be an understatement.
The new Maintenance Guidelines Law (Chapter 269 of the Laws of 2015), which becomes effective on Jan. 23, 2016, contains “advisory guidelines” for the duration of spousal maintenance. “Advice” is “an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to conduct, action, etc.” See, e.g., Dictionary.com. One of many reasons why “advisory guidelines” rather than “mandatory guidelines” were incorporated into the new law was to ensure that parties and judges had broad discretion to fix the duration of maintenance based on the factors contained in the statute. See, Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §236B (6)(F)(2).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSplits Among the Departments: What Might Be Ripe for the Court of Appeals
8 minute readRecent Developments Section 1782 Litigation and the Attorney-Client Privilege
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1A Top Connecticut Lawyer Has Resigned
- 2Just Ahead of Oral Argument, Fubo Settles Antitrust Case with Disney, Fox, Warner Bros.
- 3Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
- 4FOMO Run Amok? Resolve of Firms Chasing AI Dreams Tested by Sky-High Costs
- 5Sam Butler, Longtime Cravath Presiding Partner, Dies at 94
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250