Opinion ID: 2261402
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The spousal support award was based on insufficient factual findings.

Text: Alena argues that the superior court's award of spousal support was not supported by adequate findings of fact. In Alaska, spousal support is governed by AS 25.24.160. This statute provides that a court may award spousal support for a limited or indefinite period of time, in gross or in installments, as may be just and necessary without regard to which of the parties is in fault; such an award must fairly allocate the economic effect of divorce. [21] Before calculating spousal support, a court must consider: (A) the length of the marriage and station in life of the parties during the marriage; (B) the age and health of the parties; (C) the earning capacity of the parties, including their educational backgrounds, training, employment skills, work experiences, length of absence from the job market, and custodial responsibilities for children during the marriage; (D) the financial condition of the parties, including the availability and cost of health insurance; (E) the conduct of the parties, including whether there has been unreasonable depletion of marital assets; (F) the division of property under (4) of this subsection; and (G) other factors the court determines to be relevant in each individual case;[ [22] ] We have held that a trial court's award of spousal support must `be accompanied by adequate findings, particularly with respect to the financial needs and abilities of both parties.' [23] Although a trial court need not make findings regarding every factor, we have remanded awards of alimony when there is an insufficient analysis of the needs of the alimony recipient or the means of the paying party. [24] Support awards are generally of two types: reorientation and rehabilitative. The purpose of reorientation alimony is to allow the requesting spouse an opportunity to adjust to the changed financial circumstances accompanying a divorce. [25] Rehabilitative alimony is awarded when the recipient spouse intends to apply the alimony toward job training designed to lead to employment, in order to allow a recipient spouse who exits a marriage with few job skills and little earning capacity to secure a means of earned income. [26] Rehabilitative alimony is narrowly restricted to job training or other means directly related to entry or advancement within the work force, and the party seeking rehabilitative alimony must intend to use it for such purposes. [27] At the conclusion of trial on July 27, 2007, the superior court issued preliminary oral findings and rulings recognizing the need for Alena to complete further studies in English and engineering in order to pursue employment as an engineer in the U.S., and implying an intent to award rehabilitative support. [28] A few weeks after trial, on August 15, 2007, the court made oral findings explaining its award of $1,500 per month in spousal support and how it determined the duration of Timothy's obligation to pay it. The trial court's award was made pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1183a and the INS Form I-864 affidavit. The court estimated that it would be about two years before Alena would be eligible for citizenship and calculated that $1,500 per month in spousal support was necessary to fulfill Timothy's obligation to support her at 125% of the federal poverty level. But the court rescinded this award when Timothy's counsel pointed out that it was based on a calculation for a household of five people, not one. The parties left the August 15, 2007 hearing anticipating a set of corrected findings; the corrected findings were not entered until late April 2008, and they did not rely on federal law. Instead, the corrected findings referenced factors from AS 25.24.160(a)(2), including the length of the parties' marriage, the lack of minor children, and the parties' relative financial positions. The court did not make findings about Alena's specific financial resources and needs, about what expenses Alena would incur if she attended university classes, or about how long she would have to attend classes to achieve her educational goals. As noted, trial ended in July of 2007 but the court did not enter findings until April of 2008. The court's written findings indicate its intention that Alena receive assistance through the end of the 2008 academic year, [29] but the record does not reveal whether Alena was enrolled in classes during the interval between July 2007 and April 2008. From this record we cannot determine the scope of Alena's rehabilitation plan, her needs during the rehabilitation period, or whether she progressed toward or completed her educational goals in the interval before the corrected findings were entered in April 2008. Because the court did not make findings concerning Alena's needs or indicate how its award of spousal support would meet those needs, we are unable to review the adequacy of the spousal support award under state law. We therefore remand this issue to the trial court for reconsideration and additional findings.