Sandra Inman appeals the final judgment from the Circuit Court, which mandated a $900 monthly equitable distribution payment and $100 monthly permanent periodic alimony from her former husband, John Inman. The appellate court reverses and remands the trial court's findings regarding John Inman's income and the alimony award, while affirming other issues.
Following their marriage dissolution, both parties had an interest in a marital home valued at $145,000. The trial court awarded the home to John Inman, requiring him to pay Sandra Inman $53,281 in monthly installments over five years. Evidence indicated John had a base salary of $101,000 as a physical therapist, with a potential monthly income of at least $8,415. However, he planned to reduce his hours due to a needed surgery, prompting the trial court to calculate his monthly income at $6,500, resulting in an annual income of $78,000.
The court ordered John to pay $100 in alimony after determining Sandra's monthly need of $3,021, which was offset by her income of $2,021, with the $900 equitable distribution contributing to the total. Sandra contends that the trial court erroneously lowered John's income and improperly used the equitable distribution to reduce his alimony obligation. The appellate court agrees, emphasizing that income for alimony must be based on existing circumstances, not speculative future scenarios, and that the trial court's income calculation lacked competent evidence, given John's reported earnings of $93,000 in 2019 and $107,762 in 2020.
Reduced working hours anticipated due to potential health issues do not justify a decrease in income for alimony calculations, as established in McLean v. McLean. The appellate court in McLean reversed a trial court's income reduction decision, noting the absence of evidence supporting an actual salary decrease, only the possibility of future health-related impacts. Although changes in workload and income may warrant a modification petition, they cannot influence current alimony amounts.
The trial court's ruling that Former Husband must pay Former Wife $100 per month in alimony while considering her equitable distribution of $900 per month was incorrect. Courts should not require a spouse in need of alimony to deplete capital assets to maintain their living standards. Previous cases, such as Hanks v. Hanks, illustrate that significantly underfunding a spouse's needs while expecting them to use liquid assets for support is improper. Consequently, the decision regarding alimony is reversed, and the case is remanded for recalculation of the monthly payment from Former Husband to Former Wife. The court's decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The ruling is not final until any timely filed motions for rehearing are resolved.
