Thereafter, Lucille filed a motion for spousal support and payment of attorney's fees. Lucille resisted Leo's motion requesting that she be ordered to pay child support and, by cross-motion, Lucille moved the district court to award her a money judgment for unpaid spousal support initially imposed by the original judgment. Leo raises three issues on appeal. Secondly, Leo argues that his rehabilitative spousal support obligation should be terminated due to Lucille's completion of her educational pursuits. A trial court's determinations on spousal support, child support, and property divisions are treated as findings of fact which will not be set aside on appeal unless the findings are clearly erroneous.
Findings of fact are presumptively correct.
The complaining party bears the burden of demonstrating that the findings are clearly erroneous, and a finding is clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Simply because we might have viewed the evidence differently does not entitle us to reverse the trial court. Lucille responds that she struggled for three years without any support payments from Leo when she was in the process of rehabilitating her career through educational pursuits. Rehabilitative spousal support is awarded to provide an opportunity for a disadvantaged spouse to seek education, training, or experience that will enable the spouse to become self supporting. In theory, rehabilitative spousal support allows the disadvantaged party time and resources to acquire an education or work skills.