OPINION
¶ 1 La Vancha Downing appeals from the trial court’s ruling reducing her former husband’s, Rick Downing, spousal maintenance obligation to one hundred dollars per month. She contends the court erred in interpreting AR.S. § 25-530 аnd suggests we may reconcile § 25-530 with the spousal maintenance factors in AR.S. § 25 — 319(B)(4) and (5) to reach a different result. She also argues the court erred in denying her request for attorney fees. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶ 2 We view the еvidence in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s determination.
See Leathers v. Leathers,
¶ 3 In December 2010, Rick filed a motion tо terminate spousal maintenance pursuant to § 25-530, which had been enacted earlier that year and prohibits a trial court from considering some federal disability benefits when making spousal maintenance determinations. At the hearing on the motion, the parties agreed Rick has a service-related disability and receives, in addition to social security benefits, disability payments pursuant to U.S.C. title 38, chаpter ll. 1 The trial court determined it was precluded by statute from considering Rick’s title 38 disability benefits, and found the difference in the parties’ incomes otherwise to be two hundred dollars per month. It modified Rick’s оbligation to pay La Vancha spousal maintenance to half that amount-one hundred dollars per month. The court denied La Van-cha’s request for attorney fees. This appeal followеd.
Discussion
¶ 4 La Vancha challenges the trial court’s application of § 25-530 in conjunction with § 25-319(B). Section 25-530 states: “In determining whether to award spousal maintenance or the amount of any award of spousаl *300 maintenance, the court shall not consider any federal disability benefits awarded to the other spouse for service-connected disabilities pursuant to 38 United States Code chapter 11.” Seсtion 25-319 states in relevant part:
B. The maintenance order shall be in an amount and for a period of time as the court deems just, without regard to marital misconduct, and after considering all relevant fаctors, including:
4. The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet that spouse’s needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance.
5. The comparative financial resources of the spouses, including their comparative earning abilities in the labor market.
¶ 5 “ ‘The primary rule of statutory construction is to find and give effect to legislative intent.’ ”
Anderson v. Ariz. Game & Fish Dep’t,
¶ 6 The trial court applied the plain language of § 25-530 and modified the spousal maintenance award after considering the difference in La Vaneha’s monthly income and Rick’s monthly income, excluding from the latter his title 38 benefits. La Vancha, however, suggests § 25-530 merely prohibits courts from using title 38 benefits to fund a spousal maintenance award. She argues § 25-530 does not permit a court to “pretend” a spouse does not have money that he or she in fact has because “[a] lie cannot be the basis of just decision-making.” She contends the court should have found Rick’s title 38 benefits fully provided fоr his needs under § 25-319(B)(4) and thus the rest of his income was “completely allocable” and available to fund a spousal maintenance award.
¶ 7 But La Vancha’s interpretation of § 25-530 is inconsistent with its plain languаge because its terms are clear and unambiguous and can be read consistently with § 25-319(B)(4) and (5). Section 25-530 provides a blanket prohibition on considering title 38 benefits when determining not only whether to award spousal maintenance but also how much to award. It is not limited in the way La Vancha suggests. Had the trial court found Rick’s needs met under § 25-319(B)(4) by his title 38 benefits, the court necessarily would have “eonsider[ed]” those benefits in viоlation of the prohibition on doing so in § 25-530. The mandate of § 25-530 as applied to § 25-319(B)(4) and (5) is clear — when evaluating “[t]he ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet that spouse’s needs” and “[t]he comparative financial resources of the spouses,” the court shall not take into account, regard, or “consider” the portion of that spouse’s income derived from title 38 benefits.
See The American Heritage Dictionary
313 (2d сollege ed. 1982) (“consider” means “[t]o take into account” or “bear in mind,” “[t]o think about carefully and seriously,” “[t]o regard as”). Had the legislature intended the meaning proffered by La Vancha it clearly could have prohibited courts from funding a spousal maintenance award from title 38 benefits, and we assume “the legislature has said what it means.”
See Hughes v. Jorgenson,
¶ 8 La Vancha also argues if a court ignores title 38 benefits pursuant to § 25-530, the statute also requires the court to ignore the fact of a service-connected disability reducing the spouse’s earning capacity. This, she posits, requires courts “to pretend [spousеs receiving title 38 benefits] are completely able to earn a full living through gainful employment” when evaluating the spouses’ comparative earning abilities pursuant to § 25-319(B)(5). Her interpretation,
*301
however, again is inconsistent with the plain language of § 25-530, which mandates only that courts “shall not consider any federal disability benefits awarded,” but does not mandate that courts ignore the fact a spouse is disabled. We will not read absent language into § 25-530; indeed to do so would violate the rules of statutory construction.
See Arpaio v. Citizen Publ’g Co.,
¶ 9 Additionally, La Vancha notes the legislative history of § 25-530 supports her interpretation and she presumes the legislature’s purpose in enacting the statute was to recognize federal limits on title 38 benefits. However, because the statute’s language is unambiguous, we do not turn to legislative history to interpret the statute and determine legislative intent.
See Anderson,
¶ 10 In the trial court, La Vancha argued that potential, unintended consequences flowed from the court’s application of § 25-530. She noted that if her earnings were greater Rick could seek spousal maintenance from her, and the court would bе required to ignore his title 38 income even though his monthly income is more than sufficient to meet his needs. Because these matters are inapplicable to her circumstances, and are hypothеtical, we do not address them. 2
¶ 11 La Vancha also contends § 25-530 discriminates on the basis of gender in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, an issue she asserts her proffered interpretation avoids. She claims “the great majority of spouses seeking spousal maintenance are women” and, therefore, § 25-530 was enacted against a specific class composed predominately of women. She further argues “women are denied by law any combat role and are a substantial minority within the armed forces”; thus the “great majority of spouses with servicе-connected injuries resulting in [title 38] benefits awards are men.” Therefore, she concludes, § 25-530 invidiously discriminates in favor of men. But La Vancha’s argument is unavailing because it is grounded on unsupported assumptions, whiсh cannot serve as a basis for us to conclude the statute is unconstitutional.
See
Ariz. R. Civ.App. P. 13(a)(6) (appellate brief argument shall contain “citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the recоrd relied on”);
Polanco v. Indus. Comm’n,
¶ 12 We conclude the trial court properly excluded the title 38 benefits from its consideration of the factors in § 25-319(B). 3 By its plain language, § 25-530 requires courts to exclude from consideration any benefits received pursuant to title 38, thus determining whether to award spousal maintenance and how much to award based solely on the spouse’s income from non-title 38 sources.
Disposition
¶ 13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Notes
. We note this fact distinguishes the issue here from that addressed in
In re Marriage of Priess-man,
No. 2 CA-CV 2011-0071,
. We are not unmindful of the troublesome fiction created by § 25-530 requiring a court, as La Vancha points out, to "pretend” title 38 funds do not exist for the purpose of determining a spouse’s income and his or her ability to pay, or need for, spousal maintenance. The legislature, however, has made clear this is precisely what the court is to do. Until the statute’s clear language is modified in some way, it is the court's responsibility to follow the law as written.
. La Vancha also argues the trial court should have awarded her attorney fees becausе it incorrectly ruled in Rick’s favor and asks us to "reverse the [court’s] failure to award [her] attorney fees” and direct it on remand to reconsider. Because we determine the court did not err, we need not address this argument.