Parisien v. Parisien
Facts
Ronald and Jill Parisien were married in 1975 and divorced after a thirty-three year marriage. At the time of divorce, Jill was 50 years old, earned $24,000 annually, had health difficulties including diabetes, and the district court found she had reached her maximum earning capacity; Ronald was 52 years old, in good health aside from high blood pressure, and earned $63,350 in 2008. The district court awarded Jill more property, including inherited land and the house, but found the house needed substantial repairs and that if Jill's inherited land were excluded Ronald would receive a greater net distribution. The district court awarded Jill $1,500 per month in spousal support for two years and $1,250 per month thereafter, terminating on specified events, and ordered Ronald to continue health insurance coverage for her.
Issue
Whether the district court clearly erred in awarding Jill permanent spousal support. More specifically, the question was whether the court adequately considered Ronald's ability to pay and the parties' property distribution when making the support award.
Rule
A district court may award spousal support for any period of time, and the determination is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error. In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the Ruff-Fischer factors, including the parties' ages, earning abilities, duration of the marriage, conduct during the marriage, station in life, necessities, health, and financial circumstances, as well as the needs of the spouse seeking support and the supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay. Rehabilitative support is preferred, but permanent support may be awarded when a spouse cannot be adequately retrained to achieve independent economic status. Property division and spousal support must be considered together, and a greater property award does not necessarily eliminate the need for spousal support.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Marcus argues the court was required to award only short-term rehabilitative support because rehabilitative support is generally preferred, what is the best answer?