Opinion ID: 1969398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issue iii: did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding fifteen months of alimony to connie at $450 a month?

Text: The court awarded Connie alimony of $450 a month for fifteen months. Pending the divorce, the court had previously awarded Connie temporary alimony of $600 per month, which John paid for three months for a total of $1,800. John was given credit for amounts already paid, so the result was that the actual alimony payment is $330 a month for fifteen months. John appeals this award of alimony. The amount and length of alimony payments is ... left to the discretion of the trial court. This court will not disturb an award of alimony unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion. In awarding alimony, the trial court must consider the following factors: the length of the marriage, the respective earning capacity of the parties; their respective financial condition after the property division; their respective age, health and physical condition; their station in life or social standing; and the relative fault in the termination of the marriage. Schwab v. Schwab, 505 N.W.2d 752, 754 (S.D. 1993) (citing Studt v. Studt, 443 N.W.2d 639, 643 (S.D.1989)). See Vander Pol v. Vander Pol, 484 N.W.2d 522, 525 (S.D.1992); Kanta v. Kanta, 479 N.W.2d 505, 511 (S.D.1991). The clear abuse of discretion standard that we apply to property divisions also applies to our review of alimony awards. Vander Pol, 484 N.W.2d at 524 (citations omitted). The trial court stated that in making the alimony award, note was taken of the fault of the parties as well as the factors previously set out by this court. At the conclusion of the trial, the court stated that Connie had changed her position in reliance on the marriage promise and she is in a worse position now than she was before she got married.... I give great weight to the lifestyle and the income disparity and the position before and after the marriage. In its findings, the trial court stated that Connie's standard of living has deteriorated since the separation. The court also found that [John's] fault, income disparity, differing lifestyles, capacity to earn a living, and financial condition of the parties, justifies an award of alimony to [Connie]. Based on our review of the record, we cannot find that the court abused its discretion in the award of fifteen months' alimony to Connie. We affirm the trial court on this issue.