Attorney Boucher Lamb Argues “length of the marriage” to Court of Appeals

Summary:
The Husband argued that since the new Alimony Reform Act had defined the length of marriage as the date of marriage to the date of service of the summons on the complaint for divorce.  That this definition not only applied in the context of determining the length of time one would pay alimony but that this also applied to the division of assets, i.e. when assets were valued and divided.

Consequently the Husband attempted to secure his entire salary for one year (almost $90K) during the pending divorce by depositing same into an account in his own name. However the parties continued to reside in the marital home and the Wife used marital assets to pay the expenses of the marital home during this same time period.

The Wife’s position, to which the Appeals Court agreed, was that the length of the marriage for division of assets remains the date of marriage to date of divorce and that the Alimony Reform Act did not change that standard.

Result: In the end the Wife received 1/2 of the $90K with interest.
Read the entire decision.

On a different case:
The Court after hearing recognized that I was correct in arguing that under the Alimony Reform Act, co-habitation of the spouse receiving alimony only applies to divorces after the enactment of the Alimony Reform Act.  In this instance the former husband was attempting to terminate his alimony obligation to the former wife by stating that she was now co-habitating with another person.  Although this may be true, it is not grounds for terminating alimony under the new Alimony Reform Act as the parties were divorced prior thereto.