Court Opinion

ID: 9739842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:22:12.197744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.240831
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Sullivan, J.
I concur in the result obtained by Presiding Judge Buchanan’s opinion in that it affirms the property distribution ordered by the trial court and in that it states that we may not reverse the trial court’s denial of maintenance as an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case.
However, I must disagree with Presiding Judge Buchanan’s attribution of negative significance to the Indiana General Assembly’s refusal to adopt the proposal of the Civil Code Study Commission to provide for maintenance if “the spouse *545seeking support (sic) is unable to support himself through employment.” More specifically, I disagree with the clear implication of Judge Buchanan’s opinion that “a poorly educated, middle-aged woman, with few marketable skills” may not, as a matter of law, be determined to be incapacitated within the meaning of § 31-1-11.5-9 (c).
I do not see the General Assembly’s choice of phrasing, vis-a-vis the Uniform Act phrasing suggested by the Civil Code Study Commission, as less amenable to maintenance awards. To the contrary, I view the existing provision as properly susceptible to a more liberal interpretation than the provision of the Uniform Act which was rejected. A spouse whose age, lack of education, inexperience and want of vocational skill or training renders him or her only marginally able to support himself or herself might appropriately be held to be “incapacitated to the extent that the ability ... to support himself or herself is materially affected. . . .”
Note. — Reported at 343 N.E.2d 799.