Opinion ID: 1482159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ackerman's Appeal

Text: [¶ 14] Ackerman contends that the Superior Court failed to consider the standard of living Ackerman enjoyed during the marriage when it determined the amount of spousal support to which Ackerman is entitled. Contrary to Ackerman's assertion, the court did consider the standard of living Ackerman enjoyed during the marriage. Additionally, although the parties' standard of living during the marriage is a factor in awarding spousal support, 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(5)(N) (Supp. 2003), nothing in the statute requires that the parties must enjoy the exact same standard of living after the divorce as they did during the marriage. See Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 354-55 (Me.1994) (upholding an award of $1 per year nominal support although there was evidence of a higher than average standard of living during the marriage). [¶ 15] Here, because the court thoroughly considered all of the factors listed in section 951-A(5), and there is evidence to support the court's conclusion that $135,000 a year in spousal support would be excessive, the Superior Court did not act beyond its discretion when it awarded Ackerman $6500 a month in spousal support.
[¶ 16] Ackerman further contends that because the Superior Court found that the amount of money Ackerman had been living on after the separation was inadequate, the court abused its discretion when it awarded him spousal support from the date of the divorce hearing and not from the date of the complaint. [¶ 17] The court could have found that awarding spousal support from the date of the complaint would be excessive just as it found that Ackerman's requested annual award was excessive. Accordingly, the Superior Court did not act beyond its discretion when it awarded Ackerman spousal support from the date of the hearing and not from the date of the complaint. See Miele v. Miele, 2003 ME 113, ¶ 10, 832 A.2d 760, 763.
[¶ 18] Ackerman also contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it ordered Yates to pay only $10,000 of his attorney fees because in order to pay the remainder, he would have to sell some of his assets, which he should not be forced to do when Yates was in a far better position to pay those fees. [¶ 19] Our decisions in Miele and Clum v. Graves demonstrate that it is proper for a trial court to consider not only the parties' income, but also their other assets when determining the relative financial ability of the parties to absorb the costs of litigation. 2003 ME 113, ¶ 16, 832 A.2d at 764; 1999 ME 77, ¶ 18, 729 A.2d 900, 907. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Superior Court's conclusion that both parties can clearly pay their own attorney's fees. Accordingly, the Superior Court did not act beyond its discretion when it limited the award for Ackerman's attorney fees to $10,000.
[¶ 20] Ackerman's final contention is that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it awarded Yates the entire amount of the 1999 federal income tax refund because Yates's conduct in splitting the 1999 state income tax refund waived any claim she had in the federal refund for that year. Ackerman did not raise this issue before the Superior Court. This issue, therefore, is not preserved, Sanders, 1998 ME 100, ¶ 11, 711 A.2d at 127, and we review for obvious error, Morey v. Stratton, 2000 ME 147, ¶ 10, 756 A.2d 496, 499. Even if the issue was preserved, contrary to Ackerman's contention, Yates has consistently insisted upon her right to the entire federal refund. Accordingly, the Superior Court did not err when it awarded Yates the entire amount of the 1999 federal income tax refund. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.