Opinion ID: 1944845
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Award of Alimony.

Text: There is no fixed set of rules or formulae for determining permanent alimony and any award must be made only after careful study of the particular facts of each case. Certain primary factors, however, are considered and evaluated in deciding whether alimony should be granted and the amount thereof, such as the duration of the marriage, the ages and health of the parties, their respective financial positions, both past and prospective, the wife's contribution to the family support and property ownership, the needs of the wife and the husband's ability to contribute thereto, and the interest of society generally in preventing her from becoming a public charge. [2] Alimony is not intended as a penalty to be imposed upon the husband nor as compensation to solace the wife for wrongful abandonment by her husband, and her financial situation is a relevant consideration which may limit or even defeat an award. [3] Its objective is to provide reasonable and necessary support to the wife. It must not be used as a device to divide up the husband's property, or as a means of endowment, or to equalize the wife's income with that of her former husband. [4] Nor does our statute compel an award. [5] In announcing the finding as to alimony, the trial judge stated, The amount that she asks by way of alimony I think is quite modest  $50 a month. I think she is entitled to that. There is no evidence to show that the wife required this amount for her support. She testified she could use about $50 more per month. The record reflects she obtained all the furniture accumulated during the marriage (except a hifi and a bed); that she had a savings account of $123; that she is regularly employed in New York and nets $279.37 a month with expenses totaling $261.11. On the other hand, appellant nets $389 monthly as earnings from two jobs and claims monthly expenses of $461.75 We recognize that we may reverse an award of alimony only where the finding is plainly wrong or without substantial evidence to support it. [6] From the record we are constrained to hold that there is no substantial evidentiary basis upon which to award appellee permanent alimony or even to justify having the question reserved for future determination upon a showing of a change of circumstances. There is no existing or reasonably anticipated impairment of the wife's health that now adversely affects her continuing earning capacity. She is not likely to become a public charge. The award of alimony appears to have been predicated only upon the wife's assertion that she could use an additional $50 a month. Such a basis is an erroneous one. Measured by the usual criteria, the record does not justify the award of permanent alimony.