Spousal support

The court held that the trial court's findings as to the allocation of the parties' debt were not clearly erroneous. Further, the award of spousal support was equitable based on the property and debt awarded to the parties, their contribution to the marital estate, their ability to work, the length of the marriage, disparity in income, and their post-separation living circumstances. The parties were married in 1981 and have two adult children. When the plaintiff-wife filed for divorce in 10/08, her annual income was around $30,000 and defendant-husband's was around $45,000. His pension was valued at $180,000 and is eligible for distribution in 2018 when he turns 60. Plaintiff's pension was valued at $33,000 and she will be eligible for distributions when she turns 60 in 2022. The marital home was foreclosed upon and there was a question as to whether the mortgagee would pursue a deficiency judgment. At the time of the hearing, defendant was living in an apartment and paying about $625 a month in rent and utilities. Plaintiff was living in a house that her parents helped her buy and she was paying about $850 in rent, utilities, and other bills. The parties owned a vehicle, which they sold for $10,000 and used that money to reduce the balance on the vehicle loan to $4,000. Plaintiff was driving a vehicle purchased for her by her parents, but was trying to repay them $3,500. The parties were discharged in bankruptcy in 2004 after amassing a large amount of credit card debt. Plaintiff took out nearly 15 credit cards, including some in defendant's name without his knowledge or consent. At the time she filed for divorce, the parties had amassed a debt in excess of $37,000 on 18 credit cards. Plaintiff testified the credit cards were used for household items and cash advances to make house payments. She testified that defendant was aware of the various credit cards. Although the trial court found that plaintiff was primarily responsible for the debt, it concluded that the parties had to share the net liability and split the debt liability almost equally between them. However, the trial court awarded defendant 60% of his pension benefits and 50% of plaintiff's pension benefits. In awarding plaintiff $350 a month in spousal support, the trial court reasoned that the parties were married 27 years, defendant's income was greater, and he was awarded the greater share of the pensions. It stated that it tried to create a reasonable opportunity to allow the parties to "work their way out of the individual financial hole that they will find themselves in when this divorce becomes final." The court affirmed the trial court's allocation of the marital debt and held that the trial court did not err in awarding the spousal support.