Opinion ID: 2353046
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reduction of spousal support to one dollar per year after Rhonda turns sixty-five.

Text: [¶ 22] Although the court did grant Rhonda's post-trial motion in part, by continuing spousal support beyond her sixty-fifth birthday, Rhonda contends that the court erred by reducing the $1000 per week award of general spousal support to one dollar per year when Rhonda turns sixty-five. She argues that the court overly speculates that she would be receiving substantial retirement benefits at that time, including Social Security benefits. A trial court's determination of spousal support pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2006) is reviewed with deference. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 2005 ME 14, ¶ 13, 866 A.2d 839, 843. Spousal support must be reasonable both in amount and in the method of payment giving regard to the situation, both at present and for the foreseeable future of both spouses. Klopp v. Klopp, 598 A.2d 462, 464 (Me.1991) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 23] One of the statutory factors that the court must consider in calculating an award of spousal support is [t]he provisions for retirement . . . benefits of each party. 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(5)(G). A limit on the duration of spousal support is clearly contemplated by 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A), which creates rebuttable presumptions regarding the number of years a court may order general spousal support based on the length of the marriage. Although neither rebuttable presumption is applicable in this case involving a thirty-one-year marriage, the court acted within its discretion when, pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(3), it limited the duration and the amount of the spousal support. [¶ 24] Rhonda's argument that her future retirement benefits are too speculative to support a durational limitation on spousal support is unpersuasive. As well as her entitlement to Social Security benefits, [7] Rhonda is a member of the Maine State Retirement System, and the court awarded that entire benefit to her, the present value of which is more than $61,000. Rhonda also received a Pioneer Investments IRA in her name, with a value of nearly $25,000; the entirety of a Pioneer Investments IRA in Alan's name worth $84,600; and $54,500 from Alan's Commonwealth IRA. The court acted within its discretion when it ordered that Rhonda's award of spousal support be time-limited, based on her foreseeable, calculable, future receipt of retirement benefits.