Opinion ID: 2638500
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court's award of support alimony was insufficient and an abuse of discretion.

Text: ¶ 12 The husband argues that under the facts and circumstances presented, the amount of support alimony awarded by the trial court was adequate. [5] The wife insists that the trial court abused its discretion in its award of support alimony of only $24,000.00. ¶ 13 In a divorce action, the trial court is vested with wide discretion in dividing property and awarding alimony. [6] On appeal, this court will not disturb the trial court's judgment regarding property division or alimony absent an abuse of discretion or a finding that the decision is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. [7] In awarding alimony, although each case depends on its own facts and circumstances, [8] it must be reasonable. [9] ¶ 14 Alimony is an allowance made by the court for the maintenance of a party. [10] Ability to pay is not the sole criterion for an award of alimony. [11] Support alimony is awarded based on the recipient's demonstrated need. [12] A consideration of appropriate factors to base support alimony include: demonstrated need during the post-matrimonial economic readjustment period; the parties' station in life; the length of the marriage and the ages of the parties; the earning capacity of each spouse; the parties' physical condition and financial means; the mode of living to which each spouse has become accustomed during the marriage; and evidence of a spouse's own income-producing capacity and the time necessary to make the transition for self-support. [13] ¶ 15 Here, the parties had been married for twenty-two years when the divorce was granted. The husband supported the family. Although the wife was an LPN and was willing to obtain training to supplement her income in the future, her health clearly inhibited her ability to work full time outside the home. We have not previously addressed a case that was factually identical to the present one. However, we have reviewed alimony awards where the husband's income was significantly more than the wife's; and the wife had some means of self-support. In most cases, the alimony award was significantly more than $24,000.00. ¶ 16 For example, in Mocnik v. Mocnik, 1992 OK 99, ¶ 34, 838 P.2d 500, we increased an alimony award from $60,000.00 to $120,000.00 where the parties had been married for eighteen years; the husband had an earning capacity of $215,000 a year; and the wife, although physically and mentally unable to immediately work or go to school full-time, had an earning capacity of $20,000.00. In Durland v. Durland, 1976 OK 102, ¶ 5, 552 P.2d 1148, the Court increased an alimony award from $36,000.00 to $48,000.00 where the parties had been married nineteen years; the wife earned a minimal income in a clothing store, but was not trained for any particular employment outside of the home; and one of the children was a diabetic and required some special care. ¶ 17 Similarly, in Aronson v. Aronson, 1970 OK 74, ¶ 31, 468 P.2d 493, the Court reviewed a divorce which dissolved a fifteen year marriage. The husband was a doctor earning about $60,000.00 per year and the wife worked as a substitute elementary school teacher earning only $500.00 per month. The Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony of only $60,000.00 and it increased the alimony to $90,750.00. In other cases, when faced with similar circumstances, this Court refused to reduce awards of support alimony which were significantly more than $24,000.00. [14] ¶ 18 Based on the length of the marriage, the age of the parties, the ability of the husband to pay, the needs of the wife for living expenses and her current income potential, the trial court clearly abused its discretion when it only awarded the wife $24,000.00 in support alimony. On the record presented, this amount is insufficient to provide the wife the necessary opportunity for post-marital economic readjustment. ¶ 19 Divorce cases are of equitable cognizance. Therefore, ordinarily this Court orders the disposition the trial court should have made. [15] Here, in determining income, the trial court considered only the husband's income tax returns to calculate average monthly income. The record reflects other evidence indicating increased income, i.e. checking account balances and numerous benefits from his corporations. We agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that the husband's income must be recalculated for purposes of child support. Because we also think that the increase in the amount of support alimony by the Court of Civil Appeals was excessive, we remand the cause for a reconsideration of support alimony following a reassessment of the husband's monthly income.