Court Opinion

ID: 9694606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:48:42.941823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:03.950553
License: Public Domain

*108TAMILIA, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in so much of the Opinion of the majority which affirms the award of equitable distribution by the trial court. I agree with the appellant that much of the award to her is in fixed assets and thereby limits its utility in providing for her present and immediate foreseeable needs.
Under the circumstances of this case, however, a different division of property is hard to conceive without creating greater hardship on both parties.
I strongly differ in the affirmance of the trial court’s award of alimony in the amount of $1,000 per month for eighteen months. The trial court recognized the award of $1,000 for six months by the Master was totally inadequate and increased the time the award was to run to eighteen months. Under the facts of this case, the award was arbitrary and failed to consider the lifestyle of the parties, the deficits of the wife which could be longstanding if not permanent and provided no direction or guidance whereby the wife could become self-supporting. Merely alleging that the wife has a foreign language skill which might be saleable as a translator does not establish the potential or availability of employment in that regard. While the supporting spouse has no obligation to see that dependent spouse’s lifestyle remains unchanged from that enjoyed during marriage once the divorce decree has been entered, Fexa v. Fexa, 396 Pa.Super. 481, 578 A.2d 1314 (1990), the new emphasis of the Divorce Code in assuring economic justice must consider the needs of a spouse of twenty years who is foreign born with language impediments and no work skills. She may not be abandoned in eighteen months and must be given sufficient assistance and rehabilitation to cause her to be self-supporting if possible. This case requires that alimony be awarded of unlimited duration. Pacella v. Pacella, 342 Pa.Super. 178, 492 A.2d 707 (1985); Hodge v. Hodge, 337 Pa,Super. 151, 486 A.2d 951 (1984). The law as to permanent alimony was substantially changed in 1988 to fulfill the underlying thrust of the code to provide economic justice by mandating that the true need of *109the spouse be considered rather than impose a limited award to permit the spouse to obtain employment or develop an employable skill. 23 P.S. § 501(c), pursuant to the act of 1980, provided:
(c) Unless the ability of the party seeking the alimony to provide for his or her reasonable needs through employment is substantially diminished by reason of age, physical, mental or emotional condition, custody of minor children, or other compelling impediment to gainful employment, the court in ordering alimony shall limit the duration of the order to a period of time which is reasonable for the purpose of allowing the party seeking alimony to meet his or her reasonable needs by:
(1) obtaining appropriate employment; or
(2) developing an appropriate employable skill.
This section was generally taken to mean (erroneously) that alimony should be time limited and rehabilitative with little consideration given to the true need of the spouse resulting in the general impoverishment of women and enrichment of men resulting from such an application.
The 1988 amendment to the Divorce Code, now contained at 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701(c), provides:
(c) Duration. — The court in ordering alimony shall determine the duration of the order, which may be for a definite or an indefinite period of time which is reasonable under the circumstances.
This shift from a rehabilitative mode to one of need and fundamental justice requires that when there is no evidence that rehabilitation will occur in the foreseeable future, an award indefinite in time is most appropriate. The court’s statement, pursuant to section (d), Statement of reasons, for the limited award does not meet the test for denial of an indefinite award. Finding that appellant could work as an interpreter because of her skill in the Thai language, without consideration of the demand for such a skill or her equally necessary skill in English required to make it a viable option, simply avoided the requirement of the act.
*110An indefinite Order will assure some security to the appellant in attempting to reorder her life. The amount of the Order is not so great that she would be encouraged to do nothing to advance herself. The court, under section (e), Modification and termination, has sufficient control over the duration of the Order to make necessary changes as circumstances allow. I would remand with direction to the trial court to make the duration of the Order indefinite and explore further the appellant’s potential for becoming self-sufficient.