Tempe: Arizona Bill Would Cap Spousal Support at Four Years, Igniting Statehouse Fight Over Divorce Law

Tempe Democrats are leading a vocal opposition at the Statehouse to a bill that would cap spousal maintenance at four years, regardless of how long a marriage lasted or the circumstances of the divorce.

Senate Bill 1049 is awaiting final House and Senate approval after winning preliminary party-line votes. The legislation would ban Arizona courts from awarding spousal maintenance for more than four years. That limit would apply even to couples married for decades.

A four-year line in the sand

Sen. Wendy Rogers, a Republican from Flagstaff, sponsors the bill. She told colleagues that four years is enough time for a person to earn a college degree and get back on their feet.

"Spousal maintenance is designed to get a spouse back on his or her feet after a divorce," Rogers told colleagues. "But after how many years has that been accomplished? So this puts a finite number on it."

Rogers said she is sponsoring the legislation at the request of Senate President Warren Petersen, a Gilbert Republican who is running for attorney general. Petersen did not testify at any committee on behalf of the measure and did not return messages about why he wants the change in state divorce laws.

Tempe senators call the bill cruel

Sen. Mitzi Epstein, a Democrat from Tempe, called the one-size-fits-all approach cruel. She argued that the bill ignores individual circumstances such as a spouse who stayed home to raise children while the other built a career.

Rep. Lupe Contreras, a Democrat from Avondale, raised the question of business assets. She asked what happens when one spouse built a company with the help of the other spouse managing the home. She argued the new law would cut off support even when revenue continues flowing.

Sen. Lauren Kuby, a Democrat from Tempe, said the bill misunderstands how spousal maintenance works.

"There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of some in this chamber that spousal support is some kind of gravy train that provides an ex-spouse an extravagant standard of living," Kuby said. "That is not the case."

Kuby noted that judges already consider whether a spouse lacks sufficient earning ability or sufficient property. She also pointed out that courts can factor in whether a child's age or condition prevents a parent from working outside the home.

"That can mean an elderly person who gets a divorce later in life is dependent on spousal maintenance to pay their rent," Kuby said.

A lawyer says the current system is broken

Keith Berkshire, a family law attorney who testified in support of the bill, told lawmakers he has handled more appellate-level divorce cases than most. He said at least 90 percent of divorce petitions request spousal maintenance.

Berkshire argued the current guidelines lack flexibility. He pointed out that under current law, a person who meets certain conditions such as being married for 12 years automatically qualifies for a year of maintenance. He said the system does not account for assets.

"That means if you are 80 years old with a 40-year marriage and have $100 million, you qualify for maintenance," Berkshire said. "It doesn't matter how rich you are."

Rogers conceded she could cite no evidence of abuse or problems with the current system. She described the issue as a broad brush situation where spouses were receiving maintenance for life.

New cohabitation provision added

Rep. Quang Nguyen, a Republican from Prescott Valley who supports the measure, added a provision to the bill on Monday. The new language would end maintenance if the recipient has cohabitated for one year or more with another individual in a relationship analogous to marriage.

Arizona law already ends maintenance when someone remarries. Nguyen said he could not explain how a court would determine what counts as cohabitation. He suggested Rogers could answer that question. Rogers did not respond.

Democrats call the bill dangerous

Rep. Nancy Gutierrez, a Democrat from Tucson, called the bill dangerous. She warned it could hurt spouses who have been out of the workforce for years raising children or caring for disabled children.

The bill now awaits final votes in both chambers. If it passes, it heads to the governor's desk.