The managing partner of a Pennsylvania law firm's plans to end his career have become the subject of a landmark family law ruling in the state Supreme Court. The court ruled last week that Peter Speaker, managing partner of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, would not be allowed to reduce his alimony payments to his ex-wife before he leaves the law firm. “Without an imminent retirement date … and without any evidence of an adverse change in [Speaker’s] current financial situation, [his] The request to modify alimony is premature at best,” Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Alice Beck Dubow wrote in an 11-page opinion. According to the opinion, Speaker, 59, earned about $450,000 in 2016 as managing partner of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer and worked 60 to 80 hours a week. That firm requires managing partners to not serve another three-year term after they reach age 60, the opinion said, and Speaker told the court he plans to retire at 65 for health reasons. Speaker “testified that his salary will decrease when he is no longer managing partner, there is 'no formula' for his compensation, and his salary depends on 'how hard you work, how many hours you put in, and how much money you make from your work,'” Dubow wrote. According to the opinion, Speaker has paid his ex-wife 100,000 dollars since their divorce. paid $4,500 a month in 2008, but a court recently ordered that he can pay $3,000 a month in 2018 and $1,500 a month in 2019. His ex-wife, Michelle Speaker, appealed. Since 2005, shortly before her husband moved out of their home, Michelle Speaker was self-employed as a real estate agent, earning between $31,000 and $35,000 in recent years, the opinion said. She also had seasonal jobs at department stores. According to Dubow, Michelle Speaker testified that she did not believe she would ever be able to retire herself. Michelle Speaker argued that her ex-husband should not be allowed to reduce his alimony payments just because he wants to retire. The Superior Court agreed. “Because [Speaker] has not yet retired or has set a date for retirement soon, he cannot demonstrate a change in financial circumstances that could serve as the basis for a substantial and lasting change that would be necessary to adjust his maintenance claim downward,” Dubow wrote. “In fact, [his] Income has increased significantly since the original child support order was entered.” Michelle Speaker had also filed a counterclaim seeking an increase in child support. But the high court said she had failed to explain the reasons for that increase and therefore declined to review that issue. Teresa Reifsnyder of JSDC Law Offices, who represented Michelle Speaker, noted that Michelle Speaker was a “housewife” during the marriage, which continued to impact her ability to earn money after the divorce. “The high court's opinion really showed us how important the woman's role in the household as a homemaker is,” Reifsnyder said. “The court found that not only had Mr. Speaker's circumstances improved significantly, [but Michelle Speaker’s] the circumstances will not do it.” Sandra Meilton of Daley Zucker Meilton & Miner, who represented Peter Speaker, did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
Related Posts
Comments are closed.