## Facts

- William Lorenz (husband) and Pamela Lorenz (wife) were married for approximately 33 years and were both 54 years old when the divorce judgment was entered.
- During the marriage, the husband developed a high-earning career, while the wife spent much of her time meeting child-rearing and household needs and worked mainly as a self-employed hairdresser.
- The record evidence (including the parties’ testimony and their 2006 joint income tax return) supported the trial court’s finding that the husband earned more than $100,000 annually and the wife earned about $20,000 annually.
- The husband was in good health.
- The wife had serious medical problems, including a back condition (recently requiring surgery) and a heart condition, which affected her ability to work in her physically demanding job as a hairdresser.
- Supreme Court (trial court) granted a divorce, made equitable distribution determinations, and awarded the wife maintenance of $500 per week.
- The court directed that maintenance continue until the wife became eligible to receive full Social Security retirement benefits (apparently when she reached age 66).
- In setting maintenance, the trial court considered the marital standard of living and the wife’s post-divorce expenses, including that she would need to pay for her own health insurance (estimated at $350–$500 per month).
- The trial court also considered that, if the wife could not purchase the husband’s interest in the marital residence, she would likely need to obtain new housing.
- The husband appealed, arguing primarily that the amount and duration of maintenance were excessive because the wife could become self-supporting.

## Issues

1. Did Supreme Court abuse its discretion by awarding the wife maintenance of $500 per week based on the parties’ incomes, marriage length, and the wife’s health and earning capacity?
2. Did Supreme Court abuse its discretion by ordering maintenance to continue until the wife became eligible for full Social Security retirement benefits?

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the judgment as to the maintenance award.
- The court held that the record supported Supreme Court’s findings regarding the parties’ incomes, including that the husband’s annual income exceeded $100,000 and the wife’s was about $20,000.
- The court agreed that the wife’s medical conditions limited her ability to increase earnings as a hairdresser and supported the conclusion that her likelihood of becoming self-supporting at a level comparable to the marital standard of living was low.
- The court upheld both the $500-per-week amount and the duration tied to eligibility for full Social Security benefits, finding no abuse of discretion and concluding the award was within the husband’s means.
- The court accepted Supreme Court’s consideration of the wife’s anticipated expenses (including health insurance) and likely housing needs when evaluating maintenance.

## Legal Principles

- Maintenance awards in New York are made under Domestic Relations Law § 236(B) and depend on the statutory factors applied to the facts of the particular marriage.
- A trial court has broad discretion in fixing the amount and duration of maintenance; an appellate court will not substitute its judgment absent an abuse of discretion.
- While maintenance often aims to provide support for a period that allows the recipient to become self-supporting, longer-term maintenance may be appropriate after a long marriage when age, health problems, and marital roles limit the recipient’s earning capacity.
- In determining maintenance, courts may consider the parties’ pre-divorce standard of living, post-divorce expenses (such as health insurance), and the payor’s ability to pay without being required to fully support the recipient.

## Conclusion

Lorenz v. Lorenz affirmed a maintenance award of $500 per week payable until the wife reached eligibility for full Social Security benefits, holding that Supreme Court acted within its discretion given the 33-year marriage, the large income disparity, the wife’s health-related limits on her ability to work as a hairdresser, and the trial court’s findings regarding her anticipated expenses and the husband’s ability to pay.


Lorenz v. Lorenz, 881 N.Y.S.2d 208 (2009)