A. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation, or a proceeding for maintenance following dissolution of the marriage by a court that lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse, the court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse for any of the following reasons if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance:
1. Lacks sufficient property, including property apportioned to the spouse, to provide for that spouse's reasonable needs.
2. Lacks earning ability in the labor market that is adequate to be self-sufficient.
3. Is the parent of a child whose age or condition is such that the parent should not be required to seek employment outside the home.
4. Has made a significant financial or other contribution to the education, training, vocational skills, career or earning ability of the other spouse or has significantly reduced that spouse's income or career opportunities for the benefit of the other spouse.
5. Had a marriage of long duration and is of an age that may preclude the possibility of gaining employment adequate to be self-sufficient.
B. The supreme court shall establish guidelines for determining and awarding spousal maintenance. The court may award spousal maintenance pursuant to the guidelines only for a period of time and in an amount necessary to enable the receiving spouse to become self-sufficient. The amount of spousal maintenance resulting from the application of the guidelines shall be the amount of spousal maintenance ordered by the court, unless the court finds in writing that applying the guidelines would be inappropriate or unjust. The supreme court shall base the guidelines and criteria for deviation from the guidelines on the following relevant factors listed in paragraphs 1 through 13 of this subsection and considered together and weighed in conjunction with each other:
1. The standard of living established during the marriage.
2. The duration of the marriage.
3. The age, employment history, earning ability and physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance.
4. The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet that spouse's needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance.
5. The comparative financial resources of the spouses, including their comparative earning abilities in the labor market.
6. The contribution of the spouse seeking maintenance to the earning ability of the other spouse.
7. The extent to which the spouse seeking maintenance has reduced that spouse's income or career opportunities for the benefit of the other spouse.
8. The ability of both parties after the dissolution to contribute to the future educational costs of their mutual children.
9. The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to that spouse, and that spouse's ability to meet that spouse's own needs independently.
10. The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment and whether such education or training is readily available.
11. Excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held in common.
12. The cost for the spouse who is seeking maintenance to obtain health insurance and the reduction in the cost of health insurance for the spouse from whom maintenance is sought if the spouse from whom maintenance is sought is able to convert family health insurance to employee health insurance after the marriage is dissolved.
13. All actual damages and judgments from conduct that resulted in criminal conviction of either spouse in which the other spouse or a child was the victim.
C. A maintenance order shall be made without regard to marital misconduct.
D. If both parties agree, the maintenance order and a decree of dissolution of marriage or of legal separation may state that its maintenance terms shall not be modified.
E. Except as provided in subsection D of this section or section 25-317, subsection G, the court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over the issue of maintenance for the period of time maintenance is awarded.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
226
cases (
68 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case:
Thomas v. Thomas, 690 P.2d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
Thomas v. Thomas, 690 P.2d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 56× “The court also ordered the husband to pay to the wife for attorney's fees and costs the sum of $7,500. I. SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE The husband claims that the wife does not meet the statutory requirements for spousal maintenance set forth in A.”
Cullum v. Cullum, 160 P.3d 231 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 18× “”) section 25-319 (2007). The court did not err in using the Guidelines’ factors consistently with A.”
Sherman v. Sherman, 384 P.3d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “A person is eligible to receive spousal maintenance if he or she meets any one of the four eligibility criteria under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). Boyle v. Boyle, 231 Ariz.”
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott, 796 P.2d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 14× “section 25-319(A) requires in awarding spousal maintenance; 6) whether the trial court erred in failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify its spousal maintenance award; and 7) whether the trial court erred in considering an alleged community debt, husband’s malpractice…”
Lindsay v. Lindsay, 565 P.2d 199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 18× “While the present provisions of A.R.S. § 25-319 B 1 no longer expressly allow the court to grant spousal maintenance in gross or in lump sum payment, it has been held that under the present statute this clearly may be done.”
Neal v. Neal, 570 P.2d 758 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 14× “Any attempt to avoid the total severance of the marital bonds through the device of unjustified nominal spousal maintenance, enabling a party to later return for a greater award in the event of some unforeseen circumstance, can only be viewed as an evasion of the clear…”
Boyle v. Boyle, 290 P.3d 456 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 12× “Wife’s reasonable monthly expenses were approximately $2,500, and after she received her monthly Social Security benefits, she remained in need of $1,300 per month.”
Rainwater v. Rainwater, 869 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 14× “”) section 25-319 (1991). First, to justify any award, the evidence must support a finding under section 25-319(A) that the receiving spouse lacks sufficient property and ability to meet reasonable living expenses.”
Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage, 681 P.2d 469 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 14× “Husband’s specific contention is that the trial court erred in not considering certain non-income producing real properties apportioned and reconfirmed to the wife by the stipulation in determining her eligibility to receive spousal maintenance pursuant to A.”
Marriage of Leathers v. Leathers, 166 P.3d 929 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 7× “1 It appears from the minute entry that the trial court did consider the factors in A.R.S. § 25-319(B) when reaching its determination.”
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 778 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 13× “A.R.S. § 25-319 recites the factors a court must consider in deciding whether to award spousal maintenance, and in what amount.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(0) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A) — 99 cases
Thomas v. Thomas, 690 P.2d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“The court also ordered the husband to pay to the wife for attorney's fees and costs the sum of $7,500. I. SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE The husband claims that the wife does not meet the statutory requirements for spousal maintenance set forth in A.”
Cullum v. Cullum, 160 P.3d 231 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“”) section 25-319 (2007). The court did not err in using the Guidelines’ factors consistently with A.”
Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage, 681 P.2d 469 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“Husband’s specific contention is that the trial court erred in not considering certain non-income producing real properties apportioned and reconfirmed to the wife by the stipulation in determining her eligibility to receive spousal maintenance pursuant to A.”
Sherman v. Sherman, 384 P.3d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“A person is eligible to receive spousal maintenance if he or she meets any one of the four eligibility criteria under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). Boyle v. Boyle, 231 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A)(1) — 43 cases
Thomas v. Thomas, 690 P.2d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“The court also ordered the husband to pay to the wife for attorney's fees and costs the sum of $7,500. I. SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE The husband claims that the wife does not meet the statutory requirements for spousal maintenance set forth in A.”
Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage, 681 P.2d 469 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“Husband’s specific contention is that the trial court erred in not considering certain non-income producing real properties apportioned and reconfirmed to the wife by the stipulation in determining her eligibility to receive spousal maintenance pursuant to A.”
Boyle v. Boyle, 290 P.3d 456 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s reasonable monthly expenses were approximately $2,500, and after she received her monthly Social Security benefits, she remained in need of $1,300 per month.”
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott, 796 P.2d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“section 25-319(A) requires in awarding spousal maintenance; 6) whether the trial court erred in failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify its spousal maintenance award; and 7) whether the trial court erred in considering an alleged community debt, husband’s malpractice…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A)(2) — 25 cases
Thomas v. Thomas, 690 P.2d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“The court also ordered the husband to pay to the wife for attorney's fees and costs the sum of $7,500. I. SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE The husband claims that the wife does not meet the statutory requirements for spousal maintenance set forth in A.”
Neal v. Neal, 570 P.2d 758 (Ariz. 1977).
“Any attempt to avoid the total severance of the marital bonds through the device of unjustified nominal spousal maintenance, enabling a party to later return for a greater award in the event of some unforeseen circumstance, can only be viewed as an evasion of the clear…”
Boyle v. Boyle, 290 P.3d 456 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s reasonable monthly expenses were approximately $2,500, and after she received her monthly Social Security benefits, she remained in need of $1,300 per month.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A)(2007) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A)(3) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A)(4) — 13 cases
Boyle v. Boyle, 290 P.3d 456 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s reasonable monthly expenses were approximately $2,500, and after she received her monthly Social Security benefits, she remained in need of $1,300 per month.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A)(5) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A)(l) — 6 cases
Cullum v. Cullum, 160 P.3d 231 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“”) section 25-319 (2007). The court did not err in using the Guidelines’ factors consistently with A.”
Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage, 681 P.2d 469 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“Husband’s specific contention is that the trial court erred in not considering certain non-income producing real properties apportioned and reconfirmed to the wife by the stipulation in determining her eligibility to receive spousal maintenance pursuant to A.”
Sherman v. Sherman, 384 P.3d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“A person is eligible to receive spousal maintenance if he or she meets any one of the four eligibility criteria under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). Boyle v. Boyle, 231 Ariz.”
Thomas v. Thomas, 690 P.2d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“The court also ordered the husband to pay to the wife for attorney's fees and costs the sum of $7,500. I. SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE The husband claims that the wife does not meet the statutory requirements for spousal maintenance set forth in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B) — 115 cases
Cullum v. Cullum, 160 P.3d 231 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“”) section 25-319 (2007). The court did not err in using the Guidelines’ factors consistently with A.”
Marriage of Leathers v. Leathers, 166 P.3d 929 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“1 It appears from the minute entry that the trial court did consider the factors in A.R.S. § 25-319(B) when reaching its determination.”
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott, 796 P.2d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“section 25-319(A) requires in awarding spousal maintenance; 6) whether the trial court erred in failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify its spousal maintenance award; and 7) whether the trial court erred in considering an alleged community debt, husband’s malpractice…”
Thomas v. Thomas, 690 P.2d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“The court also ordered the husband to pay to the wife for attorney's fees and costs the sum of $7,500. I. SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE The husband claims that the wife does not meet the statutory requirements for spousal maintenance set forth in A.”
Sherman v. Sherman, 384 P.3d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“A person is eligible to receive spousal maintenance if he or she meets any one of the four eligibility criteria under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). Boyle v. Boyle, 231 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(1) — 10 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(10) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(11) — 8 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(12) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(2) — 7 cases
Rainwater v. Rainwater, 869 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“”) section 25-319 (1991). First, to justify any award, the evidence must support a finding under section 25-319(A) that the receiving spouse lacks sufficient property and ability to meet reasonable living expenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(3) — 9 cases
Rainwater v. Rainwater, 869 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“”) section 25-319 (1991). First, to justify any award, the evidence must support a finding under section 25-319(A) that the receiving spouse lacks sufficient property and ability to meet reasonable living expenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(4) — 32 cases
Rainwater v. Rainwater, 869 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“”) section 25-319 (1991). First, to justify any award, the evidence must support a finding under section 25-319(A) that the receiving spouse lacks sufficient property and ability to meet reasonable living expenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(5) — 8 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(6) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(7) — 3 cases
Thomas v. Thomas, 690 P.2d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“The court also ordered the husband to pay to the wife for attorney's fees and costs the sum of $7,500. I. SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE The husband claims that the wife does not meet the statutory requirements for spousal maintenance set forth in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(8) — 4 cases
Rainwater v. Rainwater, 869 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“”) section 25-319 (1991). First, to justify any award, the evidence must support a finding under section 25-319(A) that the receiving spouse lacks sufficient property and ability to meet reasonable living expenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(9) — 24 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(l) — 3 cases
Sherman v. Sherman, 384 P.3d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“A person is eligible to receive spousal maintenance if he or she meets any one of the four eligibility criteria under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). Boyle v. Boyle, 231 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(B)(ll) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(C) — 11 cases
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 778 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. 1989).
“A.R.S. § 25-319 recites the factors a court must consider in deciding whether to award spousal maintenance, and in what amount.”
Rainwater v. Rainwater, 869 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“”) section 25-319 (1991). First, to justify any award, the evidence must support a finding under section 25-319(A) that the receiving spouse lacks sufficient property and ability to meet reasonable living expenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(D) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(a)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(a)(2) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.