Opinion ID: 1119544
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The $5,500 cash award

Text: Joseph argues that the $5,500 cash award to satisfy any and all obligations past, present, and future was unsupported by any evidence, since the court had already ordered Joseph to pay all Nitaya's existing debts or obligations which consisted of her car loan and student loan. This argument is not supported by the record. The trial court heard testimony regarding numerous other obligations Nitaya had incurred: the cost of low income housing, medical expenses, automobile insurance, telephone, electricity, groceries, laundry, school lunches for her son, and gas. Nitaya testified that ... I can't afford to pay  I cannot live on my own income. It's hard. I can't live on. Is so hard for me. Just don't make it. Every month just behind, behind. These expenses are among the minimal obligations Nitaya will have to meet in maintaining herself and her son. While the superior court's one time only cash award may be an imprecise way of helping Nitaya stabilize as to the expense of meeting these obligations, there is no reason to assume that this award was in any way duplicative of Joseph's assumption of Nitaya's obligations regarding car payments and the student loan.