In Re The Marriage Pazhoor

Facts

Suraj (M) and Hancy (F) were married in India in 2002. F had graduated from medical school in India and was completing her internship. She is a registered physician in India. M had graduated from medical school in Russia and completed his internship in India. He was working and volunteering in the medical field in India when they married. After about a year of living with M's parents in India, the couple relocated to Naperville, Illinois, to live with F's parents. The couple later moved to their own residence. F worked in a bookstore and M worked day shifts at a college library and night shifts at a retailer. M and F began studying to become licensed physicians in the United States. M obtained his medical license. M had ultimately passed the third part and entered residency. F never passed the third part. Their daughter was born in 2008. F was preparing for her second attempt at the third part of the exam when she learned her father had been diagnosed with cancer. F never retook the exam. In 2012, after M completed a three-year residency program the couple agreed M would accept a hospitalist position in Wisconsin and F would care for their children and home. Their son was born in 2013. M was promoted that year to serve as a director of a hospitalist fellowship program, which added to his responsibilities without an increase in his pay. In 2016, M accepted a position as a hospitalist and medical director. M focused on his career. F ran the household, facilitated their moves, managed their finances, provided childcare, and focused on the children's development, education, medical care, and extracurricular activities. From 2008 to 2017, F earned no income. In 2017, she began volunteering as a religious education teacher on Wednesday and Sunday nights during the school year. M's income in 2018 was $500,742. M petitioned for divorce on August 31, 2018. F began earning $12 an hour, or $918 annually, as a religious education teacher (instead of volunteering). F began working part-time, up to twenty hours a week, as a barista at a local coffee shop for $8 an hour, or $8,320 annually. F interviewed for a patient advocacy position at a local hospital. F earns passive income from a 10% interest in two commercial real estate holding companies ($13,387 average annual income over three years) and rental income from the Naperville condo ($490 annual net income). Her total annual income from these sources is $23,115. M requested the court award $5,000 monthly for five years in spousal support, totaling $300,000. F sought $12,000 monthly in traditional spousal support. M was age forty-three at trial and was on track to earn $415,152 in 2019. He testified that after paying 46.5% of his income in taxes, his after-tax income is approximately $232,500 annually or $19,375 a month. F was age forty at trial. Her father died ten years earlier but her mother still lived in Illinois. Because too much time had passed, F testified she is interested in earning a master's degree in public health, which would take two to three years to complete if she attended school full-time, assuming her credits from medical school transferred. If her credits do not transfer, she would need to complete additional undergraduate coursework. F estimated she will earn up to $80,000 a year after she earns her master's. M claims F could immediately return to a nonclinical role earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year. His assertions were not supported by expert testimony or other evidence. F estimated her monthly expenses to be $10,244, which included tuition for a master's program. M estimates his monthly expenses to be at least $13,118, including allocations for vacations, clothing, and other incidentals, but not including contributions to his savings. M advocated for a transitional award. The court dissolved the seventeen-year marriage. The court ordered shared custody and physical care of their children and divided their property. Each was awarded marital property valued at $337,754, and F was able to retain premarital assets totaling $136,565. F retained the Naperville condo, her vehicle, some bank accounts, and a portion of the marital debt as well as her premarital investment accounts and jewelry. The court ordered M to pay $143,977 as an equalization payment from the property division, $643 a month in child support, and $7,500 monthly in spousal support for five years totaling $450,000. The court imputed income of $40,000 to F, which included $24,960 in estimated wages and her passive business income, rental income, and child support. F argued the spousal support award was inequitable and that the court erred when it imputed a $40,000 income. The court denied her motion, and F appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court's decision to impute income to F, assigned Hancy an income of $23,115, and increased the spousal support awarded to $9,000 monthly for seven years, $8,000 monthly for another three years, and $7,000 monthly for two more years, totaling $1,212,000. M appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.