OPINION
Opinion By
Zоila Tellez (“Wife”) appeals from a final decree of divorce requiring Benigno Tellez (“Husband”) to pay spousal maintenance. In two issues, Wife cоmplains the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount and duration of the spousal maintenance award. Concluding Wife’s arguments are without merit, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
The trial court signed a final decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of Husband and Wife. In addition to awarding Wife seventy-two per cent of the net community assets after debt, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $800 per month as spousal maintenance for a period of thirty-six months. 1 The trial court also *691 signed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Discussion
Amount of Award
In her first issue, Wife asserts the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her only $800 per month in spousal maintenance. According to Wife, the monthly maintenance amount should have been $1,505.68. Husband, appearing before us pro se, essentially responds that the trial court’s award is not in error. We agree with Husband.
We review the trial court’s decision to award spousal maintenance under an abuse of discretion standard.
Yarbrough v. Yarbrough,
The purpose of spousal maintenanсe is to provide temporary and rehabilitative support for a spouse whose ability to support herself has eroded over time while engagеd in homemaking activities and whose capital assets are insufficient to provide support.
See Deltuva v. Deltuva,
The crux of Wife’s argument that the trial court should have awarded her $1,505.68 in spousal maintenance per month is that she requires this amount to meet her monthly expenses and Husband has “the financial capacity to pay it from his additional discretionary spending.” According to Wife, the $741.82 Husband contributes to his 401 (k) and stock purchase plans is “discretionary spending” that should be awarded to her in the form of additional spousal maintenance. Regardless of how Husband’s spending is characterized, however, Wife fails to consider the statutory cap on the amount of maintenance a court may award. The family code provides that a court may not order maintenance that requires monthly payment “more than the lesser of (1) $2,500; or (2) 20 percent of the spouse’s average monthly gross income.” See Tex. FaM.Code Ann. § 8.055(a) (West 2005). The trial court found, and there is no dispute that Husband’s gross monthly income is $7,318. Thus, the $1,505.68 to which Wife claims she is еntitled exceeds the maximum permissible award under the statute. 2
*692
Moreover, Wife’s argument that $800 is insufficient to eliminate her monthly shortfall is misplaced. While courts frequently consider a petitioner’s monthly expenses, income, and any shortfall in determining whether a spousal maintenance award is proper, therе is no requirement that a spousal maintenance award entirely eliminate the shortfall.
See
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.051;
see also, e.g., In re Marriage of McFarland,
Duration of Award
In her second issue, Wife asserts the trial court еrred by not making the spousal maintenance award indefinite. The duration of a spousal maintenance order is limited by section 8.054 of the Texas Family Code.
See
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.054 (West 2006);
Crane v. Crane,
Wife contends she has an incapacitating physical and mental disability which prevents her from making more than a menial wage. In support of her argument for indefinite maintenance, Wife relies on our decision in
Hackenjos v. Hackenjos,
While there is no dispute that Wife has significаnt health issues, there was no finding of incapacity or disability. Wife testified that she has diabetes, asthma, neuropathy,
3
hypertension, allergies, and arthritis and suffers frоm severe depression. But Wife also testified that she did not complete an application for disability benefits after concluding she was ineligible because she is gainfully employed. To this end, Wife testified and the court
*693
found that she works as a teacher’s aide, and is at times also employed as a nanny. Thеre is no indication that Wife is so employed because her alleged disability precludes other work. Indeed, in her findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial judge noted that she had balanced the issues presented about Wife’s health and education with the fact that she has been able to continue tо work. Despite the testimony about Wife’s illnesses, the record does not conclusively demonstrate a disability or incapacity such that Wife is unable to support herself through appropriate employment. In addition, even if a spouse is permanently disabled, extended maintenance is discretionаry.
See Stewart v. Stewart,
No. 01-04-01126-CV,
Hаving resolved all of Wife’s issues against her, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.