Court Opinion

ID: 9527256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:28:53.538443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.732893
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The trial court abused its discretion in awarding permanent maintenance. Tammy was 32 years old and employable with a potential work career spanning at least 30 to 35 years. Her child is school age. She has no apparent health impairments that might restrict her from working. She is apparently educable. She graduated from high school and has attended floral conferences, craft classes and painting classes. Yet, Tammy has done little toward finding a job or obtaining job training or education because she says Edward had promised to support her when they were first married. The trial court, therefore, should have awarded rehabilitative maintenance. Edward should not bear the burden of showing a substantial change in circumstances before maintenance can be terminated or modified. Moreover, the trial court should have ordered Tammy to seek employment. Nothing in the trial court’s judgment serves as an incentive to Tammy to achieve complete financial independence. The award entered simply prolongs Tammy’s dependence, Edward’s litigation expenses, and obviates judicial economy. I would reverse the trial court’s award of permanent maintenance and remand for entry of an order of rehabilitative maintenance and required employment.