Opinion ID: 1444885
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Award of Interim Spousal Maintenance.

Text: Judge Fuld entered an order awarding Sylvia interim spousal maintenance of $1,000 per month on July 7, 1986. With the exception of one $900 payment, Donald failed to pay the maintenance. On Sylvia's motion, the delinquent maintenance through September 2, 1987, along with interest and costs, was reduced to judgment in the amount of $14,993.17 in December 1987. Sylvia executed against Donald's bank accounts and recovered most of the judgment. As part of the Final Decree of Divorce, Donald was ordered to pay the unpaid spousal maintenance which had accrued from October 2, 1987 through August 29, 1990. Donald contends that the award of temporary alimony against a spouse who was permanently and totally disabled and unable to pay because he had no income was clearly erroneous. [1] Donald asserts that Sylvia had employment income of $12,000 to $14,500 per year and could have liquidated assets in the event she required further funds. Further, Donald contends that because the trial court did not articulate the basis for the maintenance award, the award was erroneous. We are hampered in our review of this issue because the record contains no findings in support of the interim maintenance order entered by Judge Fuld. We have often commented on the requirement in Alaska Civil Rule 52(a) that trial courts make findings in support of their decisions in non-jury cases. The trial court thus has a duty by sufficiently detailed and explicit findings `to give [this] court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court's decision, and to enable it to determine the ground on which the trial court reached its decision.' Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987) (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962)). See Ogard v. Ogard, 808 P.2d 815, 816 (Alaska 1991) (remanding where we were unable to determine whether [an interim child support award was] appropriate because the court ha[d] not made findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the award); Lewis v. Lewis, 785 P.2d 550, 554 (Alaska 1990) (remanding where the court provided no explanation for treating interim spousal maintenance as a distribution of marital property). Without an understanding of the basis for the order, we cannot determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Sylvia interim spousal maintenance. Therefore, we must vacate the award [2] and remand the issue for specific findings. In remanding the issue we note that the legislature has provided trial courts with little guidance regarding how they are to identify the appropriate circumstances which justify an interim spousal maintenance award. See AS 25.24.140(a). [3] We make the following observations to assist in that regard. We have previously distinguished the purposes of spousal maintenance and the distribution of marital property. See Lewis v. Lewis, 785 P.2d 550, 553-54 (Alaska 1990). In conjunction with an interim award of attorney's fees and costs, an award of interim maintenance provides for reasonable and necessary living expenses while divorce litigation is pending and insures that neither spouse is disadvantaged in presenting their claims. See Cooper v. State, 638 P.2d 174, 181 (Alaska 1981). Because the purpose of interim spousal maintenance is different from the purpose of a property settlement, a court awarding interim spousal support need not consider all of the factors articulated in Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 n. 6 (Alaska 1962). Rather, the primary factors which should be considered in awarding interim spousal maintenance are the relative economic circumstances and needs of the parties and the ability to pay the maintenance. See Burrell v. Burrell, 537 P.2d 1, 7 (Alaska 1975).