Accordingly, the amount of alimony pendente lite to which the parties consent does not bind the trial court as to the amount of permanent alimony it must eventually award. Defendant maintains that this amounted to an abuse of the trial judge's discretion. The determination of what constitutes the reasonable needs and expenses of a party in an alimony action is within the discretion of the trial judge, and he is not required to accept at face value the assertion of living expenses offered by the litigants themselves. Implicit in this is the idea that the trial judge may resort to his own common sense and every-day experiences in calculating the reasonable needs and expenses of the parties. By doing so, we find no abuse in the exercise of its discretion.
Defendant also claims error in the trial court's calculationsas to plaintiff's needs and expenses.
Again we disagree. As previously stated, the trial judge is not bound by the financial assertions of the parties and may resort to common sense and every-day experiences. By reducing some of plaintiff's expenses here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Defendant also argues that the alimony award is flawed because the trial court made no findings relative to the duration of the award, instead just mandating a lifetime award. Our statutes presently do require specific findings relative to the duration of any alimony award.