Seeking Dismissal or Imposition of Terms in Spousal Maintenance Orders
In a recent case, a judge considered the competing applications of a former husband and wife to vary, capitalise, or discharge a periodical payments order from 2004. The parties, now in their 60s with adult children, were seeking to end the ongoing support payments.
The judge, HHJ Hess, highlighted key principles in such cases, including the court’s ability to make capital orders like lump sum or property adjustment orders. The assessment is needs-based, with the burden on the recipient to justify ongoing financial dependency. The court can also consider the recipient’s existing capital and earning capacity in determining the need for continued support.
In this case, the wife had a combination of money from the divorce settlement and inherited funds, generating income from investments. The judge calculated her potential earnings and rejected the husband’s suggestions of downsizing or factoring in potential future inheritances.
Ultimately, the judge’s decision reflects a trend towards promoting self-sufficiency post-divorce, emphasizing the recipient’s obligation to use their resources to meet their needs. This case highlights the evolving landscape of spousal maintenance orders and the increasing focus on clean breaks in divorce settlements.