Opinion ID: 883751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: cross appeal issue iii maintenance

Text: Michelle argues that she should have been awarded maintenance because her property is insufficient to provide for her reasonable needs. She asserts that her need for retraining and the needs of her child justify an award of maintenance. Daniel counters her argument by stating that she is in good health, is able-bodied and is able to support herself through employment commensurate with her education and skills [and that] she does not meet the statutory requirements for an award of maintenance. Daniel further states that Michelle is more employable than he is, and both parties have had inadequate financial resources to meet their monthly obligations. We agree with Daniel. The Special Master made the following findings of fact about Michelle, adopted by the District Court. She is able-bodied and in good health and although she had been unemployed, she was hired during the course of the hearing to be trained as a certified nurse's aide at $5.10 per hour plus benefits with a $.50 raise once certified. The court found that she had demonstrated that she was able to locate work appropriate to her level of training and education. The court found that her job would help her to achieve her goal of becoming an LPN or an RN. The court also determined that the marriage had lasted only five months. The court concluded that she did not meet the statutory requirements for an award of maintenance and, therefore maintenance [was] not appropriate in this case. The court found that Daniel suffered serious physical impairments when he received a head injury when he was 15 years old. His left arm is permanently paralyzed and the left side of his body is impaired. His physical condition is expected to deteriorate as he gets older. Moreover, he has a learning disability which affects his processing of oral and written communication and impedes his ability to communicate effectively. He was unemployed at the time of the dissolution and was not expected to work at any jobs other than manual labor jobs such as dishwasher and custodial work. His physical and mental impairments were found to restrict his ability to obtain employment. Clearly, Michelle's educational and economic prospects are brighter than Daniel's prospects. Daniel can barely provide for his own needs, much less provide maintenance for Michelle. She has proven that she is able to support herself through employment commensurate with her education and skills. She has already sought and obtained a position through which she can continue to receive an education and improve her skills and employability. She does not meet the requirement for maintenance set forth in § 40-4-203(1)(b), MCA, because she is able to support herself through appropriate employment, and she is not the custodian of a child whose condition makes it inappropriate to seek employment outside of the home. Moreover, considering the factors set forth in § 40-4-203(2), MCA, an award of maintenance is inappropriate. The marriage was of short duration, Michelle is young, able-bodied and in good health. Daniel is barely able to meet his own needs and does not have the ability to work in positions other than manual labor such as dishwashing or custodial work. We therefore hold that the District Court correctly concluded that this is not a situation in which an award of maintenance would be appropriate.