Contribution to child care and economic support to family represents only what a spouse is legally and morally obligated to provide: it is not a vehicle by which a party receives a “refund” for such services.
60-40 split of income affirmed where trial court found wife was capable of obtaining a full-time position.
No error in awarding $1,500 per month for 10 years in 23 year marriage where wife had CPA and was going to receive substantial property division award.
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by stating that a spouse has a legal right to maintenance.
Trial court’s denial of maintenance to wife was not unfair, given her failure to take reasonable steps to find employment during separation, the fact that she did not contribute to husband’s career and the income she can earn from employment plus retirement benefits.
Trial court affirmed in denying maintenance to husband in 39 year marriage where both spouses were employable and could attain approximately the same total income if they both chose to continue working.
Trial court affirmed for holding maintenance open to husband (for purpose of ensuring payment of debts) and denying it to wife based on the enhanced value of the degree she earned during the marriage.
Denial of maintenance affirmed where husband’s efforts did not increase Wife’s earning capacity and did not subordinate his education or career to devote time and energy to the welfare, career or education of the other spouse or to managing the affairs of the marital partnership.
Maintenance award reversed as appellate court does not see a reasonable basis for a significant disparity in the parties’ income where husband would have paid wife far more than 50% of the joint income. Not published, but citeable.
Holding maintenance open to wife rather than awarding maintenance affirmed after marriage of almost 30 years where parties agreed that husband would retire so the parties could do missionary work. Not published, but citeable.