Opinion ID: 1279751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Is the Trial Court's Alimony Award Clearly Unjust?

Text: The trial court awarded Wife $2,000 per month alimony. Husband contends this is clearly unjust because it exceeds his monthly income and because it is an obligation of his estate. The trial court has the power to award alimony payments as are just and necessary, without regard to fault. AS 25.24.160(3). [19] We have expressed a preference of providing for spouses' financial needs by property division rather than alimony. Malone v. Malone, 587 P.2d 1167, 1168 (Alaska 1978). As in property divisions, the trial court must consider the Merrill factors in setting an alimony award. [20] An alimony award is just and necessary if there is not adequate property to provide for the parties' needs and one spouse is unable to support herself by gainful employment. Messina v. Messina, 583 P.2d 804 (Alaska 1978). We may find an abuse of discretion when a property and maintenance award takes practically all one spouse's income. Burrell v. Burrell, 537 P.2d 1, 4 n. 6 (Alaska 1975). We have expressed concern when promissory note payments from one spouse to the other would leave the payor with no income. Brooks 677 P.2d at 1235. We conclude that the property division in this case adequately provides for Wife's financial needs. Therefore, we reverse the alimony award in light of our preference of satisfying a spouse's financial needs with a property division, and direct that the Decree of Divorce be modified accordingly. [21]