In Indiana, spousal maintenance, often referred to as alimony, is much more limited than in other states. While some places allow long-term or even permanent support after divorce, Indiana law only permits maintenance in very specific situations set out by statute. 

The case of Bizik v. Bizik is still one of the most well-known examples of how strictly Indiana courts apply these rules. It shows just how hard it can be to get spousal maintenance in a contested divorce unless your case clearly fits one of the narrow legal categories. 

Background of the case

In Bizik v. Bizik, the couple divorced after a long-term marriage. During the divorce, the wife asked the court for spousal maintenance, saying she didn’t have the ability to fully support herself and would need ongoing financial help from her ex-husband to get by.

The husband disagreed, arguing that she was capable of working and that her situation didn’t meet the legal requirements for spousal maintenance under Indiana law.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court sided with the husband and denied the request for support altogether. The wife then appealed the decision, hoping a higher court would see things differently.

Indiana’s maintenance framework

On appeal, the Court of Appeals began by emphasizing a foundational principle of Indiana family law: Indiana does not recognize traditional alimony. Instead, maintenance is allowed only in a limited number of circumstances, defined by statute. These include:

• Incapacity maintenance, when a spouse is physically or mentally incapacitated;
• Rehabilitative maintenance, intended to help a spouse become self-supporting, generally limited to three years; and
• Caregiver maintenance, when a spouse must care for a disabled child.

A spouse seeking maintenance bears the burden of proving that one of these statutory categories applies.

The court’s analysis

The Court of Appeals took a close look at the evidence from the trial to decide whether the wife had a valid legal basis for receiving spousal maintenance. While the court acknowledged there was a clear financial gap between the two ex-spouses, it pointed out that a difference in income alone isn’t enough to justify maintenance under Indiana law.

The evidence showed that the wife was able to work and didn’t have any physical or mental condition that would prevent her from supporting herself. The trial court had also divided the couple’s property in a way that took their financial situations into account—without the need for ongoing support payments.

Since the trial court’s decision was backed by the evidence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the judge didn’t abuse their discretion by denying spousal maintenance.

Talk to a Danville, IN, Divorce Lawyer 

Chris Arrington represents the interests of Danville, IN, residents during their divorce. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.