Opinion ID: 2635296
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rehabilitative Maintenance

Text: While testifying at trial, Kelly asked the court to award him rehabilitative spousal support so that he could obtain a college degree. He testified that he wanted to study architecture or design, thought it would take him about three years to obtain a degree, and estimated that he would need around $400 per month in support. In rejecting this request at the conclusion of trial, the superior court, relying on Connie's opposing position, noted that Kelly was not precluded from going to college during the marriage, and in fact he specifically chose not to do so. Kelly challenges this ruling, arguing that, given his physical disability and lack of marketable skills, an award of spousal support was warranted. We review decisions concerning spousal maintenance for abuse of discretion. [12] Our case law recognizes spousal maintenance is usually appropriate only when it is both just and necessary since [t]he preference in Alaska is to resolve the financial concerns arising from a divorce by means of the property division. [13] Moreover, we have previously observed that the form of spousal support Kelly requested here  rehabilitative alimony  should usually be reserved for situations in which the recipient spouse intends to apply the alimony toward job training designed to lead to employment. [14] We have also noted that the primary factors which should be considered in awarding interim spousal maintenance are the relative economic circumstances and needs of the parties and the ability to pay the maintenance. [15] We have emphasized that, to qualify for rehabilitative alimony, a spouse must at least identify a career goal, a degree program aimed at realizing that goal, and a time frame during which the degree may be earned through reasonable diligence. [16] Judged by these standards, Kelly's request for alimony seems marginal, at best. Kelly claimed only that he was hoping to get a degree. He had not yet identified any particular school or program; he roughly estimated that in order to get that degree, basically I'd need at least three more years of college; and he made no concrete showing to justify the amount of support that he requested: Court: So how much did you say you wanted, sir? Kelly: I'd agree with what [my lawyer] said. I can't really remember what she said. She said something for three years. Counsel: It was $400.00. In short, Kelly's proposal hardly identified a specific degree program aimed at realizing a well-defined career goal within an established time frame. And, as a practical matter, the proposal might not have appeared reasonably calculated to enhance Kelly's earning potential. Rehabilitative maintenance is a needs-based, pragmatic remedy designed to be used when justified by disparity in a divorcing couple's circumstances. [17] Yet as we have already mentioned, Kelly's conviction means that he will have most of his financial and rehabilitative needs addressed by the Department of Corrections for the foreseeable future. Although the superior court was understandably reluctant to consider this factor because Kelly's sentencing hearing remained pending when the court issued its decision on the property division, we see no reason to ignore the reality of Kelly's situation now that he has been sentenced. By contrast to Kelly, Connie now shoulders primary responsibility for the parties' children, and she faces significant financial pressures. As the superior court accurately observed, at the time of trial both parties lived on low incomes which barely met their expenses. Considering the totality of these circumstances, we hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kelly's request for rehabilitative alimony.