By Howard Fischer | Daily Independent
State lawmakers are on the verge of making sharp cuts in how long some people getting divorced will have to pay their soon-to-be former spouses.
Legislation awaiting final House and Senate approval — so far on a party-line vote with Republicans in support and Democrats opposed — would add new conditions before a judge could determine that someone is entitled to maintenance. That includes both the share of property the person would get as well as that person’s earning ability.
But the key to Senate Bill 1049 is it would absolutely bar a court from awarding maintenance for more than four years. That limit would apply regardless of factors that judges now can consider — things like the length of the marriage and whether one spouse lacks earning ability because that person remained at home to enable the other spouse to go to school and advance career opportunities.
Sen. Wendy Rogers said she considers the four years appropriate.
“Spousal maintenance is designed to get a spouse back on his or her feet after a divorce,” the Flagstaff Republican told colleagues.
“But after how many years has that been accomplished,” Rogers said. “So this puts a finite number on it.”
Why four? She said that was enough time to get a college degree and “get back on one’s feet.”
But Sen. Mitzi Epstein, a Tempe Democrat, said creating a one-size-fits-all approach — and failing to consider individual circumstances — is nothing short of “cruel.”
Rogers told colleagues she is carrying the legislation at the behest of Senate President Warren Petersen.
But Petersen, a Gilbert Republican who is running for attorney general, did not testify at any committee on behalf of the measure nor return messages about why he wants the change in state divorce laws.
That left it to Rogers to answer the questions of other lawmakers about the plan. But she conceded that she could cite no actual evidence of abuse of or problems with the current system of letting courts decide these issues, “just a broad brush situation where spouses were getting spousal maintenance for the rest of life.”
Rose Law Group family law attorney Kelsey Fischer tells RLGR, “As a family law attorney, I appreciate the Legislature’s interest in creating consistency and predictability in spousal maintenance awards. However, the strength of Arizona’s current system is that it allows judges to evaluate the unique facts of each case rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all outcome.
The most concerning aspect of SB 1049 is not the emphasis on considering property division or earning capacity as those are relevant factors, but the absolute four-year cap on maintenance regardless of the length of the marriage, the age of the parties, disability, caregiving responsibilities, or sacrifices made during the marriage. Most practitioners would agree that maintenance should not be indefinite in every case, and it is reasonable for lawmakers to examine whether current guidelines adequately account for a recipient spouse’s assets and earning capacity. However, a blanket four-year cap risks replacing individualized justice with an arbitrary rule that may not fit the realities of many long-term marriages.
Arizona judges already have broad experience weighing statutory factors and balancing fairness to both parties. While reforms aimed at preventing inappropriate or excessive awards may be worth discussing, removing judicial discretion entirely risks creating inequitable outcomes for the very people spousal maintenance was designed to protect.”
