The trial court found that there were no assurances that the roommate's contributions would continue. While the award to husband may seem generous given the fact that he had not been paying those expenses, nothing in the record establishes that the trial court's finding of no assurances was clearly erroneous. Wife also argues that the trial court erred in setting her reasonable monthly expenses by disregarding her needs, including housecleaning assistance, special dietary considerations, uncovered health-care expenses, and money for a car and gifts for grandchildren. The court found that the amount it budgeted was sufficient to meet wife's reasonable needs. The record does not establish that the trial court's monthly expense finding was clearly erroneous.
Wife argues that the maintenance award was insufficient.
In this context, the maintenance award was not an abuse of discretion. Wife asserts that denial of attorney fees was an abuse of discretion. A district court shall award attorney fees provided the court finds that the fees are necessary for the good-faith assertion of the party's rights, the party from whom the fees are sought has the ability to pay them, and the party to whom the fees are rewarded does not have the means to pay them. This court will not reverse the refusal to award attorney fees absent a clear abuse of discretion. In this case, the trial court concluded that the parties should pay their respective attorney fees and costs.