Court Opinion

ID: 9715311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:00:09.146971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:33.472306
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur as to Issue II and III however, I respectfully dissent as to Issue I. Because Laverne is disabled and without means of support, I would agree with her, assertion that the trial court committed reversible error by not awarding her spousal maintenance. Indiana Code 31-1-11.5-11(e)(1)1 gives the court the discretionary power to grant maintenance when the spouse is disabled. The circumstances in this case lead to the conclusion that some amount of maintenance should be provided to Laverne. Because of the large difference in their income and Laverne’s inability to maintain any type of gainful employment due to her disability, I disagree with the majority and would find that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court not to grant spousal maintenance. Although the Dahnke ease cited by Laverne, Dahnke v. Dahnke (1989), Ind.App., 535 N.E.2d 172, discusses rehabilitative maintenance and not incapacitative maintenance, I agree with its general proposition that the trial court’s denial of spousal maintenance can be an abuse of discretion when the denial is against the logic and facts of the circumstances of the case. Should Harold become disabled himself, he has an opportunity to petition the court for modification of the spousal maintenance award according to his circumstances.
As to Issue IV, I concur in that the reconsideration of the business valuation under Issue III may require an adjustment in the total monetary award, but would instruct the trial court to adjust the figure to include an appropriate spousal maintenance award as well.

. I.C. 31 — 1—11.5—11(e)(1): ... if the court finds a spouse to be physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of the incapacitated spouse to support himself is materially affected, the court may find that the maintenance for that support is necessary during the period of incapacity, subject to further order of the court.