Boemio v. Boemio
2010 Md. LEXIS 184, 994 A.2d 911, 414 Md. 118 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court may consult non-legislative guidelines from a reliable and neutral source as an informational aid when determining the amount and duration of an alimony award, provided the court first conducts a thorough analysis of all statutory factors and the guidelines do not supplant or contradict the statutory framework.
Facts:
- Petitioner Boemio and Respondent Seixas were married in 1985 and had two children.
- During the 21-year marriage, Boemio earned a Master's of Business Administration and built a career at the Federal Reserve Board, earning a six-figure salary.
- Seixas, who had a high school diploma and one year of college, initially worked as a retail manager but later took a lower-paying administrative assistant position to become the primary caregiver for the children.
- The couple established a "securely middle class" standard of living, paid off their mortgage, and prioritized saving for retirement and their children's education.
- Boemio moved out of the marital home in January 2006, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- Boemio filed a complaint for absolute divorce against Seixas in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (a trial court).
- Seixas filed an amended counter-complaint seeking, among other things, an award of alimony.
- Following a trial, the Circuit Court awarded Seixas $3,000 per month in indefinite alimony after analyzing the statutory factors and consulting the AAML guidelines.
- Boemio (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (an intermediate appellate court), challenging the trial court's use of the guidelines.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in an unreported opinion.
- Boemio petitioned the highest court of Maryland for a Writ of Certiorari, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by consulting non-statutory alimony guidelines as an informational aid in determining the amount and duration of an alimony award after conducting a full analysis of the factors required by state statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Adkins, J.
No, a trial court does not err by consulting non-statutory alimony guidelines as an informational aid after conducting a full analysis of the factors required by state statute. The court held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion because he first conducted a comprehensive analysis of the twelve statutory factors required under Maryland Family Law § 11-106. The judge explicitly stated that the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) guidelines were used for "informational purposes only," were "not authoritative," and did not control the court's decision. The court reasoned that since the statute provides qualitative factors but no quantitative formula, consulting neutral, well-researched guidelines can be a helpful tool for judges to translate their analysis into a specific dollar amount, thereby promoting fairness and consistency. The court also affirmed the award of indefinite alimony, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that an "unconscionably disparate" standard of living would exist post-divorce given the lengthy marriage, the significant income gap, and Seixas's non-monetary contributions that enabled Boemio's career.
Analysis:
This decision formally authorizes a common but previously unsanctioned practice in family law, allowing trial courts to use external, non-legislative guidelines to help quantify alimony awards. By permitting reference to frameworks like the AAML guidelines, the court acknowledges the practical difficulty of translating qualitative statutory factors into concrete financial figures. This holding increases predictability for litigants and counsel, providing a sanctioned 'reality check' for discretionary awards, while still affirming the primacy of the statutory factors and case-specific analysis. The ruling will likely encourage more consistent, though still discretionary, alimony determinations in Maryland and may influence other jurisdictions facing similar challenges in spousal support cases.
