| The only time I see maintenance/alimony awarded in | | | | On the other hand marriages longer than 20 years |
| marriages less than five years is where one party is | | | | almost always do involve some form of maintenance, |
| unemployed or would end up on the street if their | | | | or "evening out" of the income and assets over time. |
| partner just left them. Even in those cases, the | | | | The goal of the Court in such long-term marriages is |
| awarded at temporary orders reads something like: | | | | mainly to maintain the party's financial standing at the |
| "The [husband/wife] shall pay to the wife maintenance | | | | same level for a considerable time after the marriage. |
| in an amount of $500 for six months or until the wife | | | | Spousal maintenance in Washington has traditionally |
| secures full-time employment. If full-time employment | | | | been defined by an oft-quoted (and legally cited) bar |
| has not been found in 6 months the [husband/wife] | | | | journal article by Judge Windsor. It has been cited in |
| may petition the court for an extension but only for | | | | many Washington divorce Supreme court cases. |
| good cause shown." I have written orders like that | | | | Recently, there has been discussion regarding a new |
| many many times. At the temporary orders stage the | | | | metaphor. A recent (2006) Washington State Bar |
| judge or commissioner makes his or her ruling and | | | | Journal article discusses the subject. Maintenance can |
| says "Counsel, Write up the Orders". Tradition has it | | | | be highly discretionary and the cases I have dealt with |
| that the primarily prevailing party draws them up; | | | | on appeal have been difficult to overturn. That is |
| although sometimes a lawyer much older than you will | | | | basically the general consensus: the Judge or |
| assume that he or she will do the honors. We then | | | | Commissioner must have really, really screwed up |
| often times have to go back in and argue over them. | | | | before they overturn it. Yes, you are thinking the right |
| But that is usually if the attorneys either don't know | | | | thing: it is very important to win at the lower levels. |
| each other or one is inexperienced. As lawyers we | | | | Don't sit back and comfort yourself that "If they make |
| also sit in the back of the courtroom and wait for our | | | | the wrong decision I can just appeal." This is not tax or |
| case to be called. During that time we talk with other | | | | corporate law. There are fewer analytical rules to |
| attorneys about their cases or watch how the judges | | | | follow. And this is alimony in the real world. |
| and commissioners decide other cases in Family Court. | | | | |