In Re Lyon: Extension or Renewal of Alimony to be Made as Justice Requires

On May 30, 2014, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an opinion In the Matter of Lyon. This decision clarifies the standard to be applied in requests to extend or renew alimony. 

The Facts

Husband and Wife divorced in May 2007. They entered into a permanent stipulation that was incorporated into their divorce decree that required Husband to pay to Wife $3,000 per month in alimony from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007, and $5,000 in monthly alimony from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012, “or until the death of either party, whichever first occurs.”

A month before the scheduled termination of the alimony, the Wife petitioned for an additional three years. She alleged that her newly diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder necessitated an extension of alimony so that she could afford her medication and finish her education. The Husband filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the Wife had failed to establish an unanticipated or unforeseeable substantial change in circumstances. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition.  

The Appeal

The Wife appealed and argued that the trial court erred by applying the standards that govern a motion to modify alimony to her petition to extend. Although the standard to modify required a person to prove that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the original award that made the amount of alimony either improper or unfair, she argued that she was not required to meet that test. Instead, she said that she was subject to the same standard as an initial award of alimony.

The Holding

The Supreme Court held that when a party seeks to extend or renew, either in modified or unmodified form, “the burden is upon the party in whose favor the order is to run to establish that justice requires a renewal or extension, and if so, what justice requires as to amount[,] . . . in the light of all the circumstances then existing.”

The Takeaway

The standard articulated in the Lyons decision will be easier to meet for alimony recipients as opposed to a substantial change in circumstance test.  This has the potential to create a chilling effect a person’s willingness to agree to pay alimony as one can be less certain of the end date for the payments. Even so, the recipient must still prove that justice requires an extension. While the facts do not require a substantial change in circumstances, it seems likely that the trial court would still examine all of the circumstances to determine why, if short term alimony was awarded, the recipient has not put him or herself into a position to be self-supporting.

 

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.nhfamilylawblog.com/admin/trackback/315715
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?