ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
Joyee Cannon sought "spousal maintenance" in her divorcee from Gerald Cannon, contending that she was unable to support herself due to physical and mental incapacity. Wе agree with the divorce court and the Court of Appeals that Joyee was not entitled to maintenance payments. However, those courts should not have considered such fаctors as depletion of material assets in deciding entitlement to spousal maintenance.
Background
Joyee Cannon filed a petition in 1994 for dissolution of her 25-year marriage to Gerald Cаnnon. During the marriage, she had suffered from numerous medical ailments and as part of the dissolution she sought "spousal maintenance." The trial court entered a decree of dissolution оf marriage in 1999 which denied her request for spousal maintenance. She then appealed this determination to the Court of Appeals. In response, Gerald asked the Court of Apрeals to order Joyee to pay his appellate attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the determination of the trial court with respect to spousal maintеnance but denied Gerald's request for fees. Canmon v. Cannon,
Discussion
I
A good place to start analyzing a claim for spousal maintenance is this court's opinion in Voigt v. Voigt,
At the specific level, Chief Justice Shepard pointed out that in Indiana a court may order spousal maintenance in three cireumstances:
(1) Incapacity maintenance: where the trial court "finds a spouse to be physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of the incapacitated spouse to support himself or herself is materially affected." Ind.Code § 31-15-7-2(1) (1998). 2
(2) Caregiver maintenance: where the trial court finds that a spouse must forgo employment in order to care for a child with a physical or mental incapacity. Id. § 31-15-1-2(2). 3
(3) Rehabilitative maintеnance: where the trial court finds that a spouse needs support while acquiring sufficient education or training to get an appropriate job. Id. § 81-15-7-2(3). 4
Voigt,
At the more general level, Voigt stаnds for the proposition that, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, the trial court's authority in ordering maintenance is restricted and limited to these three statutory options. Id. at 1276. "Where none of these cireumstances exist, a court may not order maintenance without the agreement of the parties. This policy reflects a clear lеgislative intent to retain fairly strict limits on the power of courts to order maintenance without the consent of the parties." Id. at 1277 (citations omitted).
Here Joyce seeks incapаcity maintenance. As such, Voigt informs us that determining Joyce's claim to incapacity maintenance must be evaluated by giving a strict if not literal interpretation to the language of the stаtute. That is, the trial court could only award incapacity maintenance if it found Joyce to be physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that her ability to suppоrt herself was materially affected. And, although the language of the statute appears to give the trial court some discretion not to award maintenance even where it makеs such finding, we believe the strict construction principles applicable in this area narrowly limit that discretion as well. 5
II
The trial court entered findings of fact from which it concluded that Joyce was not entitled to incapacity maintenance in this case. Because the statute requires findings in order to award maintenance, Ind.Code § 31-15-7-1, we treat the court's findings as "speciаl findings" under Indiana Trial Rule 52(A)(8). We will not set aside such findings unless clearly erroneous and give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id.
As pointed out by the Court оf Appeals, the trial court issued findings on the spousal maintenance issue in response to Joyee's motion to correct errors. In those findings, the trial court reconsidered and then аffirmed its earlier determination that Joyce's request for spousal maintenance be denied. We summarize those revised findings as follows.
First, the trial court found the testimony of Gerald's and Joycе's medical
Second, the trial court found there to be some evidence that Joyce had been able to earn some income by conducting "garage sales," although it was difficult, if not impossible, to document her earnings.
From these two findings, the trial court found that "the evidence as to whether Joyce was disabled to the point that her ability to support herself is materially affected is inconclusive." (R. at 22-28.) On appeal, Joyee argues thаt the trial court's findings as to her depression were uncon-troverted and that the evidence relating to garage sales all predated the medical evidence as to incaрacity. While we acknowledge these arguments, we conclude that they go to the relative weight and credibility of the evidence and witnesses at trial, matters within the purview of the trial court. Because the trial court's findings in this regard are not clearly erroneous, we sustain its conclusion that Joyee is not entitled to incapacity maintenance.
III
After it addressed the medical and garage sale evidence, the trial court made three additional findings. It held that during the pendency of the divorce action, Gerald had paid, pursuant to court order, spеcified amounts in "spousal maintenance," mortgage payments, and Joyce's insurance premiums. It further held that since separation Joyce had liquidated and utilized specified marital assets. Lastly, it held that during the pendency of the divoree, Joyce had spent money on home remodeling, cosmetic surgery, and a vacation. From these three additional findings, the court concluded that its order denying Joyce's request for spousal maintenance "is not erroneous under the circumstances." (R. at 24.)
The Court of Appeals referred to these three additional findings in its opinion. Because "a maintenance award is not mandatory," the Court of Appeals said, "Tuln-der these cireumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discrеtion in denying [Joyce's] request for spousal maintenance." Cannon,
We agree with the Court of Appeals that, given the language of the statute, a maintenance award is not mandatory. But as we pointed out at the outset of this discussion, the Legislature has narrowly circumscribed the authority of courts to award spousal maintenance. While such factors as payments mаde by one spouse to another pursuant to the terms of provisional orders and depletion of marital assets are appropriate considerations in dividing the marital pоt, see Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5 (1998), we believe that the statutory scheme for spousal maintenance does not admit of such considerations. Where a trial court finds that a spouse is physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of that spouse to support himself or herself is materially affected, the trial court should normally award incapacity maintеnance in the absence of extenuating cireumstances that directly relate to the criteria for awarding incapacity maintenance.
Because the trial court here found, irrespective of the provisional payment and depletion of asset issues, that Joyce had not demonstrated an entitlement to incapacity maintenance, no rеversal or remand is required.
We grant transfer pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals as to the issue discussed in footnote one, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Notes
. No claim is made to us concerning the appellate attorney fee issue and we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals on that issue. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).
. This provision has been recodified without substantive change subsequent to Voigt At the time of Voigt, it was codified as Ind.Code § 31-1-11.5-11(e)(1) (Supp.1996).
. Previously codified as Ind.Code § 31-1-11.5-11(e)(2) (Supp.1996).
. Previously сodified at Ind.Code § 31-1-11.5-11(e)(3) (Supp.1996). In its opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals incorrecily recited that the criteria for awarding rebabili-tative maintenance under Ind.Code § 31-15-7-2(3) were thе factors to be considered when awarding incapacity maintenance under Ind. Code § 31-15-7-2(1). Cannon v. Cannon,
. We shall revisit this latter concept in part III infra.