Opinion ID: 1191975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court's award of support alimony is supported by the evidence.

Text: ¶ 11 The husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded support alimony to the wife because: 1) the wife failed to demonstrate a need for support alimony; and 2) there is insufficient evidence of the husband's ability to pay support alimony. The wife insists that the trial court's award of support alimony is supported by the evidence. ¶ 12 In a divorce action, the trial court is vested with wide discretion in dividing property and awarding alimony. [5] 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. [6] The burden is upon the party appealing from a divorce decree to show that the findings and judgment are against the clear weight of the evidence. [7] ¶ 13 In awarding alimony, although each case depends on its own facts and circumstances [8] , it must be reasonable. [9] Ability to pay is not the sole criterion for an award of alimony. [10] Support alimony is based upon a consideration of appropriate factors which include: demonstrated need during the post-matrimonial economic readjustment period; [11] the parties' station in life; [12] the length of the marriage and the ages of the parties; [13] the earning capacity of each spouse; [14] the parties' physical condition and financial means; [15] the mode of living to which each spouse has become accustomed during the marriage; [16] and evidence of a spouse's own income-producing capacity and the time necessary to make the transition for self-support. [17] ¶ 14 Here, the parties had been married for 26 years when the divorce action was filed. The husband's income was nearly three times that of his wife. Although the wife had some additional training to possibly supplement her income in the future, the amount of alimony awarded was not an exorbitant amount. We have not previously addressed a case that was factually identical to the present one. However, we have reviewed alimony awards in which the parties were married for many years; the husband's income was significantly more than the wife's; and the wife had some means of self-support. ¶ 15 In Durland v. Durland, 1976 OK 102, ¶ 5, 552 P.2d 1148, 1149, we 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 from partial ownership 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. In Ford v. Ford, 1988 OK 103, ¶ 11, 766 P.2d 950, 953, we refused to reduce an award of support alimony of $2,000.00 per month for 24 months. The wife had an education but was not employed at the time of the divorce. The husband earned $4,300.00 per month after taxes at the time of the divorce. ¶ 16 Similarly, in Harmon v. Harmon, 1983 OK 89, ¶ 24, 770 P.2d 1,4, the parties, in their late 50's, were divorced after 37 years of marriage. The wife worked for a travel agency during the later years of marriage and the husband was a practicing attorney with thirty-three years experience. We upheld the trial court's award of support alimony of $65,000.00 payable at $500.00 per month for 121 months. In a case more factually similar to this cause, the Court of Civil Appeals, in Lincoln v. Lincoln, 1992 OK CIV APP 124, ¶ 16, 840 P.2d 41, 44, upheld the trial court's award of $36,000.00 in support alimony to a wife, payable for 60 months. The wife had a high school diploma and a gross monthly income of $866.67. The husband made about $37,000.00 to $39,000 per year and the parties were married for 22 years. The Court of Civil Appeals finding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in making such an award is persuasive here as well. [18] ¶ 17 On the record presented, we must agree with the wife that the amount awarded by the trial court is supported by the evidence. [19] Based on the length of the marriage, the age of the parties, ability of the husband to pay, the needs of the wife for living expenses and her current income potential, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the wife $500.00 a month in support alimony for 36 months. This amount provides the wife the necessary opportunity for post-marital economic readjustment.