## Facts

- Ethelyn D. Morgan (wife) and Charles R. Morgan (husband) married on January 27, 1967, while both were college students.
- At the time of marriage, the wife was studying biology and the husband was in a prelaw program.
- The couple agreed the husband would finish college and then attend law school while the wife worked to support the household, which required the wife to discontinue her own schooling.
- The wife worked full-time early in the marriage, earning modest wages, and stopped working immediately before the birth of the parties’ son in August 1967.
- A few months after the birth, the wife resumed working part-time, performed child-care arrangements, and did typing work at home, including work connected to the husband’s studies.
- The parties separated in October 1972.
- By separation, the husband had completed Columbia Law School (including Law Journal), clerked for a federal judge, and then joined a prominent Wall Street law firm as an associate, with a salary that had risen to about $27,500 by late 1974 and with strong career prospects.
- By the time of the litigation, the wife had developed substantial secretarial and technical skills and the court found she was employable at a salary roughly comparable to what she sought for support if she returned to full-time work.
- After separation, the wife returned to school full-time, enrolled in premedical studies at Hunter College, and achieved very high grades, aiming to proceed to medical school.
- The court had already granted the wife a divorce on abandonment after a non-contested hearing and had awarded her custody of the parties’ seven-year-old son; the remaining dispute focused on financial relief, especially whether the wife should receive alimony for a limited period to continue her premedical course and then medical school.

## Issues

1. After granting a divorce, may the court award alimony designed to give a spouse who sacrificed her education to support the other spouse’s professional training a realistic chance to complete premedical and medical education?
2. How should the court weigh the wife’s ability to be self-supporting in secretarial work against the husband’s increased earning capacity and ability to pay when setting alimony and related relief?

## Decision

- The court held that the wife was entitled to alimony for a limited duration geared to permitting her to continue her premedical work and proceed toward medical school, rather than being required to rely solely on her immediate ability to work as a secretary.
- The court treated the parties’ marital agreement—under which the wife deferred her own education and worked so the husband could complete law school—as a key consideration supporting an award that would provide the wife a comparable opportunity for professional development after divorce.
- The court found that the husband’s current earnings and anticipated career trajectory made some educationally oriented support feasible in a way that distinguished earlier cases where the payor spouse lacked the financial capacity to fund such plans.
- The court evaluated the parties’ competing budgets and debt obligations and concluded the result could not be determined by a mechanical “needs” calculation alone; instead, the award required judgment about fairness and ability to pay in light of the marriage’s history.
- In addressing the husband’s argument that a spouse has no duty to fund the other spouse’s professional ambitions, the court distinguished authorities such as *Rosner v. Rosner* on the ground that the husband’s income there made such a program unrealistic, whereas the husband in *Morgan* had a materially higher income and better prospects.
- The court granted financial relief in the divorce action consistent with these findings, including support connected to the wife’s continued schooling, along with child-related support consistent with custody.

## Legal Principles

- In fixing alimony after divorce, a court considers ability to pay, the recipient spouse’s needs and earning capacity, and the circumstances of the marriage, including the parties’ respective contributions.
- A spouse’s contributions—financial, domestic, and otherwise—that enabled the other spouse to complete professional education and obtain a higher earning capacity may justify alimony that addresses the imbalance created by those marital choices.
- A spouse’s immediate employability does not, by itself, bar alimony where the proof shows the marriage involved a mutual plan that the supported spouse would obtain a professional degree and the supporting spouse would defer comparable opportunities.
- Courts may award time-limited alimony directed to education or training when the record supports both the feasibility of the plan and the payor spouse’s capacity to contribute, and when fairness favors providing the supported spouse a reasonable chance to pursue similar advancement.
- Prior decisions denying support for professional schooling are not categorical bars; they turn on facts such as the payor spouse’s income, the practicality of the requested plan, and the equities arising from the parties’ conduct during the marriage.

## Conclusion

*Morgan v. Morgan* upheld limited-duration alimony and related relief to allow a divorced wife—who had stopped her own education and worked to support her husband through college and law school—to continue premedical study and pursue medical school, even though she could earn a living as a skilled secretary, because the husband’s substantial earnings and the marriage’s agreed-upon sacrifices made such relief fair and financially workable.


Morgan v. Morgan, 81 Misc. 2d 616, 366 N.Y.S.2d 977 (1975)