(Income derived from tax returns)
There are exceptions to the general rule of looking at marital expenditures plus marital savings to determine the marital standard of living where the marital standard of living was unreasonable. The court should focus on what a reasonable marital standard of living would have been in the case where the parties’ marital standard of living was unreasonable. The trial courts have discretion is this area and may adjust spousal support up or down depending upon what is determined to be the reasonable marital standard of living but nothing compels them to so act.
The marital standard of living may have been unreasonably high where the parties lived off of excessive credit, one or both parties worked excessive overtime or second jobs, or where the marital lifestyle was financed by assets. The parties should present evidence of what the marital standard of living should have been had the parties not borrowed excessively or worked excessive hours. However, the trial court may order the supporting spouse to pay support congruent with an excessive marital standard of living by ordering the supporting spouse to continue to liquidate assets to fund the high standard of living.
The marital standard of living may have been unreasonably low where the parties suppressed their lifestyle to allow one or both parties to complete their education, or due to gambling or substance abuse issues. The court may order spousal support in excess of that necessary to finance the marital standard of living where the former student spouse becomes employed or where the former gambler or substance abuser recovers. Also, the trial court may order spousal support in an amount above that necessary to fund the marital standard of living where the parties enjoyed an upwardly mobile standard of living due to community efforts.