Court Opinion

ID: 9654514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:24:01.042181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:10.159112
License: Public Domain

SACKETT,. Judge
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).-
I would not remove the requirement that Gary continue to pay half of the ordered alimony on Karen’s cohabitation or remarriage. This was a long-term marriage in which Karen assumed a lesser role for family support and a greater role for family care. Her disability precludes her from gainful employment. Her financial future should not be totally dependent on the ability of another man to support her.
I agree with the majority’s decision affirming the district court’s fifty percent reduction of alimony on Gary’s retirement and receipt of social security retirement. I do not, however, adopt their reasoning that his ability to establish a retirement fund in the future is a factor to consider on the issue.
I would award no appellate attorney fees.
In all other respects, I concur with the majority.