Divorces are a lot of things, but one thing they are not is simple. This is especially true when it involves contested financial issues such as spousal maintenance. While custody and child support are often the focus, disputes over spousal maintenance (alimony) can also occur. In the case of Roetter v. Roetter, the Indiana Supreme Court addressed a contested alimony award and clarified how trial courts should approach the matter. 

Background of the case

In this case, the matter involved two divorcing parents who did not fight over custody or child support, but there was disagreement on two key issues: the division of property and spousal maintenance. The wife was hoping to receive $100 a week in maintenance for three years. She argued that her caregiving responsibilities for the parties’ child with autism, combined with the income disparity between them, warranted ongoing financial support. 

The trial court, in this case, granted the mother’s request in part. Instead of three years, the court awarded her maintenance for 18 months. This decision left both parties unhappy. The wife felt the support was too short, while the husband argued that the court should not have ordered spousal maintenance at all.

The Supreme Court’s ruling

In this case, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s 18-month maintenance order. The court emphasized that spousal maintenance decisions are discretionary. This means that trial judges have leeway when it comes to making these orders. They tailor support based on the facts of each case. In the situation described above, the trial judge carefully considered the former wife’s role as caregiver, her income, and her ability to work. It then concluded that limited maintenance was appropriate. 

The Supreme Court made it clear that appellate judges should not second-guess these discretionary rulings unless there is a clear error. Since the trial judge’s decision was supported by evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the award. 

Why this case is important

The Roetter decision is important for several reasons. These include:

• Maintenance is limited by statute – Indiana law allows maintenance in rare situations. These include situations in which one spouse is physically or mentally incapacitated or when a spouse cannot support themselves because they’re caring for a disabled child. It also allows alimony for rehabilitative purposes, so a spouse can go to school or get job training. In this case, the wife’s claim fell under the category of taking care of a disabled child. 
• Duration and amount of alimony are discretionary – Even when spousal maintenance is justified, the court decides how much alimony the spouse will receive and for how long. The judge is not bound by what either spouse requests. 
• Evidence is critical – The wife obtained maintenance because she provided credible evidence for why she needed it due to get caregiving responsibilities. Without that record, the court could have easily denied her request. 
• Appeals are limited – The Supreme Court indicated that it would defer to the trial courts in most cases. Unless the decision was clearly unsupported by the evidence, appellate courts won’t overturn an award. 

Talk to a Danville, IN, Divorce Lawyer Today

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