Court Opinion

ID: 9698432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:50:15.69629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:40.940030
License: Public Domain

WEISBERGER and SHEA, Justices,
concurring.
We are in agreement with the majority that the assignment of assets made by the trial justice was within the bounds of his discretion, bearing in mind the criteria that must be applied pursuant to G.L.1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 15-5-16.1, as amended by P.L.1982, ch. 403, § 1.
However, in light of the substantial assets distributed to the wife, assets valued *347at approximately $627,000, we have some doubts about the propriety of awarding rehabilitative alimony to her for a five-year period. It should be noted that by the end of this five-year period the husband will have reached his seventy-third year. It is not ordinarily expected that one of postre-tirement age will continue to maintain the same level of earnings as he has had in earlier years. The practice of law is a highly competitive profession and requires great physical and mental stamina in order to achieve the level of earnings upon which the trial justice apparently based his order.
Even though we are somewhat uncertain about the ability of the husband to sustain the level of earnings to which he has been accustomed during the entire period for which alimony has been provided, we refrain from dissenting because in the event that circumstances change, he would have the remedy of seeking a modification of this support order in accordance with § 15-6-16, as amended by P.L.1984, ch. 79, § I-