In a divorce action, the filing of the Complaint is considered the “end of the marriage” for equitable distribution purposes. However, in a recent Superior Court decision, the Court ruled that the substantial increase in income by the husband (paying spouse) was relevant to determine the alimony figure to be awarded to the wife (receiving spouse).

Dudas v. Dudas, decided on April 11, 2011 and approved for publication November 1, 2011, involved a couple who was married for over twenty-six (26) years. During the course of the marriage, the husband was the primary financial provider for the family, while the wife was the primary caretaker of the parties’ two sons and the household. Throughout the marriage, the wife sporadically worked outside the home on a part-time basis, never earning more than $18,000.00 a year, as the court noted.  The husband, employed in the auto-parts industry as a sales man, gradually increased his income to $59,000.00 a year by the time the Complaint for Divorce was filed, while jumping post the filing of the Complaint to $64,000 in 2009 and $76,000 in 2010.

Wife argued that as part of its alimony award calculation, the court should consider the increased income level husband began earning post the filing of the Complaint, while husband argued that the post Complaint earnings level should not be considered because, he said, alimony should be based upon the parties’ standard of living during the marriage (prior to the filing of the Complaint) and because the parties’ standard of living during the marriage was not based upon his increased earnings post Complaint. The court relied in four (4) of the thirteen (13) factors (statutory factors) listed by the alimony statute in addition to two additional principles, among them “Momentum of Marriage”, to reject husband’s argument and determine that the income levels earned by husband post the filing of the Complaint were relevant in determine the amount of alimony he was to pay wife.

Among the statutory factors, the court relied upon the first, directing courts to consider “the actual need and ability of the parties to pay”, to point out that the statute explicitly permits a court to consider the present financial need and ability and does not “artificially” limit the court’s consideration to past needs or past income levels. The court also relied on the last of the statutory factors, directing courts to consider “any other factors which the court may deem relevant”, to introduce the following two principles as factors in the analysis, “Marginal Cost Estimation” and “Momentum of the Marriage”.

Marginal Cost Estimation, which the court indicates “focuses on the extra cost of supporting an additional person in a family unit”, was used in the alimony determination analysis to recognize the fact that when parties separate, there is normally not enough money to maintain themselves in the same standard of living as the one enjoyed during the marriage (another of the of the four statutory factors above-referenced relied upon by the court in its analysis). Whereas before the separation, the parties’ resources were used to support one household, upon separation, the same resources are now used to support two households.  Therefore, if the husband has enjoyed an increase in his income, the same is relevant to the court’s determination, in light of the court’s obligation to consider and attempt to have both parties enjoy a standard of living comparable to the one enjoyed during the marriage. The court indicated that were it to ignore such increase in income, the result would be “highly inequitable”, in that the husband would be left to enjoy the benefits of the increased income alone, enabling him alone to enjoy a standard of living comparable to the marital one, leaving the wife to struggle given that the resources as they were prior to the filing of the Complaint were not enough to allow both to enjoy the same standard of living.

Such reasoning is based on the premise that this wife is also entitled to share in the benefits of this husband’s increase in income, brining in the second additional factor introduced by the court, “Momentum of the Marriage”. The court defined this principle as one that “recognizes that in many instances, one’s occupational efforts often start off by yielding small and modest level earnings.  However, these efforts may serve as a strong springboard into higher earnings”. In the context of this divorce action, the Judge pointed out to the fact that the husband earned a relative small annual income at the beginning of the marriage ($14,000). However, during the more than 25 years of marriage, husband was able to “concentrate on developing his skills and talents and expertise in auto parts” thanks to the fact that he had wife by his side. Therefore, the court found that the husband’s earning capacity (the fourth of the statutory factors considered by the court) as reflected by his increased income was directly attributable to the joint efforts of both parties during the marriage. Therefore, the wife was entitled to participate in the enjoyment of the increased earnings, which is the fruit of joint marital efforts.

Perhaps recognizing that the introduction of the principle of Momentum of Marriage in an alimony dispute/determination had the potential of having extensive ramifications, the Judge in Dudas cautioned that the same would not be applicable to every case in which post the filing of the Complaint or post the Judgment of Divorce, one of the spouses begins enjoying a higher income. Namely, Momentum of Marriage would not be applicable where the increase in income is entirely unrelated to marital effort.  Nonetheless, this decision, if left to stand, promises the potential to have substantial consequences in alimony determinations and disputes, both pre-and post-Judgment.