Does the Family Court Have to Consider Expected Increases in Value of Assets when determining Alimony

Alimony is one of the most challenging issues to advise clients about in their divorce cases. SC Code Ann. Section 20-3-130(C) sets forth the 13 factors that the Family Court judge must weigh in determining whether to award alimony. But, once the Family Court has determined that alimony is appropriate to order in a particular case there is no guidance on the amount.

The South Carolina Supreme Court addressed an issue related to alimony in its opinion that was issued on March 20, 2019 in Sweeney v. Sweeney.

This case deals with a very specific issue about whether there should be a requirement for the Family Court judge to assign a specific value to a party's investment income when determining an alimony award. This clarifies one of the alimony factors found in S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-3-130(C)(6), "the current and reasonably anticipated earnings of both spouses" by examining what level of specificity is needed to be considered by the Family Court when evaluating the "reasonable anticipated earnings" of a spouse.

The Court specifically framed the issue as determining whether there should be a requirement for the Family Court Judge to consider the expected increase in value of a party's assets in determining alimony awards.

In Sweeney, Husband and Wife were married nearly 30 years. At the beginning of the marriage, Wife supported Husband as he earned his Masters Degree. Later in the marriage he began a consulting business which became successful enough for the family to be financially secure and for Wife to no longer need to work and remain home caring for the children. More specifically, Husband's gross monthly income was in excess of $30,000.

For the lawyers out there that want to know about the other alimony factors the Family Court considered, let's dive in: (1) parties were married nearly 30 years, (2) Husband's adultery contributed to the breakdown of the marriage - though Husband alleged that his affair did not begin until after the parties separated and had been having marital difficulties, (3) the parties enjoyed a well above-average lifestyle, and (4) Husband has the ability to pay alimony.

In the trial of the case, Husband's financial expert presented evidence that alimony was unnecessary in this case because Wife will be receiving a significant sum in equitable apportionment and this sum - a large amount of investments - will provide wife a substantial income each month in excess of her reported living expenses. Wife's expert disputed the claim and alleged that investment income from the investments should not be considered in the calculation of support because it was too speculative and Wife would have to invade the principal of the investments to maintain her lifestyle while Husband would not have to invade his portion of the assets.

The Family Court ordered $5,000 per month in alimony even though Wife "would receive substantial income from her share of the assets" though it did not specify or estimate how much "substantial income" would be.

The Supreme Court reviewed the record along with the statutory alimony factors and considered the Family Court's review of the factors and declined to require Family Court judges assign a specific number to future investment income of the parties when considering alimony awards.