Among their assets were sellers' interests in two contracts for deed. The court then issued another amended judgment and decree in May 1996. The court ordered the parties to work to restore the defaulted contract for deed and stated that if it had not been restored by the end of 1996, the court would review the temporary maintenance award. On appeal from a trial court's determination of a spousal maintenance award, the standard of review is whether the trial court abused its wide discretion. A subsequent maintenance determination is based on the circumstances existing when the application for maintenance is made.
Wife argues that the maintenance award in the second amended judgment and decree is insufficient.
She contends that the temporary maintenance award leaves a gap between her monthly expenses and income. We recognize that even with the temporary maintenance, wife has a monthly deficit. We note, however, that the trial court explained in the first amended judgment and decree that it awarded wife a disproportionately larger share of the marital property in recognition of the fact that she had lower monthly income than husband. Wife did not appeal from the first amended judgment and decree. The first amended judgment and decree was equitable only because the disproportionate property award was offset by the court's reservation of spousal maintenance.