No, the judge can't force him to pay alimony in this situation. Alimony is supposed to help a spouse who is in a tough financial spot after a divorce or to make things fair. But Gabrielle got almost $21 million in the divorce. This huge amount of cash can earn her $500,000 to $800,000 a year in investment income alone, which is more than enough to keep living her fancy lifestyle. Since she doesn't need the extra money, there's no reason for alimony. However, the court did agree that because Dennis wasted their shared money on his secret affair, Gabrielle should get a larger slice of the remaining property to make up for it.

Yes, the judge's original decision to award alimony was correct. The first judge who heard the case did a very careful job and had good reasons. Even with her settlement, Dennis will still earn way, way more money than Gabrielle every year from his job. Alimony can be used to help even out that huge difference. The main judges are just unfairly second-guessing the trial judge who knew the case best and was trying to make the outcome fair for a 25-year marriage.

Yes, sometimes it's fair to give someone money after a divorce even if they don't need it, to make up for what they lost during the marriage. But in this case, Gabrielle got enough stuff in the divorce that will make her money on its own, so she doesn't need extra payments from Dennis. It's okay that Dennis got less stuff because he spent money on his other family without telling Gabrielle. But it wasn't right to say Dennis wasted money just because he spent more than he said he would on everyday things. Also, the court shouldn't have made Dennis pay extra money as a punishment or pay for Gabrielle's expert without a good reason.

I agree with most of what the main opinion says, but I think it was okay for the court to say Dennis should pay Gabrielle extra money. The court looked at everything carefully and decided it was fair because Dennis will still make a lot more money than Gabrielle after the divorce.

I don't agree with the main opinion about the extra money Dennis was supposed to pay Gabrielle. The court that decided this first did a good job looking at everything and made a fair decision. They didn't ignore the money Gabrielle would make from her stuff, and they didn't make this decision because Dennis did something wrong in the marriage. I think we should keep the decision as it was.

Yes, a district court abuses its discretion by awarding such alimony. While alimony can be awarded to compensate for economic losses or maintain a marital standard of living, not just to meet financial need, it is not appropriate where the property settlement itself achieves these goals. The court must consider the passive income that can be generated from the assets awarded to the receiving spouse. In this case, Gabrielle received nearly $21 million in assets, primarily cash, which could generate between $500,000 and $800,000 in passive annual income. This income is more than sufficient to cover her expenses and maintain her marital standard of living, thus negating any basis for an alimony award. The court affirmed, however, that spending community funds on an extramarital affair and making non-routine gifts to family constitutes dissipation, which is a compelling reason for an unequal distribution of community property. General overconsumption by a high-income earner, however, is not considered dissipation.

No, the district court did not abuse its discretion. The majority improperly substitutes its judgment for that of the district court and disregards the deferential standard of review. The district court conducted a thorough and specific analysis of all statutory factors, correctly recognizing that alimony can be awarded to compensate for economic losses and to address a large post-divorce disparity in earning capacity. The trial court correctly followed precedent which states a spouse should not be required to deplete their share of community property for support. The majority's conclusion that Gabrielle's passive income 'obviated' the need for alimony misapprehends the trial court's well-reasoned decision to address the significant income gap that would persist post-divorce.

Yes, alimony can be just and equitable even when not based on financial need because it compensates for economic losses from the marriage and divorce, and helps maintain the marital standard of living. However, in this case, the substantial passive income Gabrielle can generate from her share of the community property negates the need for alimony. I reverse the alimony award because Gabrielle received income-producing assets as her share of the community property that obviated any arguable basis for alimony. Additionally, community funds spent on extramarital affairs are considered dissipated, providing a compelling reason for an unequal division of community property. I affirm the district court's unequal disposition of community property due to Dennis's spending on extramarital affairs and gifts to family, but reverse the unequal disposition based on Dennis's everyday consumption. The district court erred in requiring Dennis to explain everyday expenditures over several years and finding dissipation when he failed in this task. I also reverse the sanctions for violations of the joint preliminary injunction and the award of costs to Gabrielle, as these were not properly justified. Finally, I remand for the district court to consider the accumulation and waste of community property between its ineffective oral termination of community property and the actual termination when the written divorce decree was entered.

I concur with the majority on all issues except the reversal of the district court's award of alimony. The majority disregards our deferential standard of review and the wide discretion vested in the district court to award alimony to compensate for economic losses resulting from the marriage and divorce, including to equalize post-divorce earnings or maintain the marital standard of living. The district court's analysis was thorough and specific, finding a sufficient factual basis to consider an award of support in the nature of compensation for economic losses. The district court correctly found that Dennis's income historically dwarfed Gabrielle's throughout their marriage and projected a significant difference in the parties' average monthly net income post-divorce. The district court's award was consistent with our recognized rule that alimony can be 'just and equitable' to compensate for a spouse's economic losses from the marriage and divorce, including to equalize post-divorce earnings or maintain the marital standard of living.

I dissent from the majority's reversal of the alimony award. The majority's determination that the district court disregarded Gabrielle's passive income and should have considered the nature and amount of the property disposition when determining whether Gabrielle needed alimony to maintain her standard of living is not supported by the record or the district court's findings. The district court plainly followed the rule in Shydler that the division of community property should be considered, but a spouse should not be required to deplete his or her share of the community property for support. The majority fails to address why Gabrielle should consume her assets to resolve a post-divorce income disparity. Additionally, the majority's speculation that the district court's alimony award could have been improperly motivated by Dennis's marital indiscretions is unfounded, as the district court was careful to recognize the admonition against doing so in its conclusions of law. I would affirm the award of alimony because the district court did not abuse its discretion in making this award.

Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot