Mayville v. Mayville

William Mayville (plaintiff) and Judy Mayville (defendant) divorced in 2003 after a 27-year marriage. Pursuant to the Mayvilles’ divorce agreement, William was obliged to pay Judy $3,000 per month in spousal maintenance until he reached the age of 65, and William’s pension plan was divided 50-50 between William and Judy. The maintenance award was based on William’s then-current $100,000 annual income. Judy was disabled and had never been able to work. In 2009, William lost his job but was awarded six months’ worth of severance at full pay. Because William was 59 years old, he planned to retire rather than seek new employment. Immediately after receiving notice of his pending termination, William filed a petition to modify his spousal maintenance obligations, arguing that his termination was a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances. The trial court ordered William to continue paying $3,000 per month during his six-month severance period and then to pay $1,500 per month until he reached the age of 65. The trial court calculated William’s ongoing, modified spousal maintenance award based in part on the monthly income William would receive from his pension. William appealed, arguing based on the double-dipping theory that the trial court should not have considered his pension income in calculating his ongoing modified maintenance obligations because Judy had already received 50 percent of William’s pension in the divorce.