In addition to spousal support to meet his or her reasonable needs during coverture and alimony pendente lite to enable him or her to maintain or defend a divorce action on equal par, the dependent spouse may be entitled to alimony. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701. Permanent alimony provides a stable income to a dependent spouse who is unemployable due to advanced age, disability, or lack of education and work experience. See, e.g., Baker v. Baker, 624 A.2d 655 (1993). Periodic alimony may be warranted where a dependent spouse or his or her custodial children have unmet needs. See, e.g., Harasym v. Harasym, 614 A.2d 742 (1992). Rehabilitative alimony enables a dependent spouse whose education or career was disrupted by the marriage to return to school or retrench his or her career. See, e.g., Semasek v. Semasek, 470 A.2d 1047 (1984). Reimbursement alimony compensates a dependent spouse who supported the family while his or her spouse earned a professional degree or built a successful family business. See, e.g., Bold v. Bold, 574 A.2d 5524 (1990).

Primarily, the trial court must focus must upon the list of seventeen (17) factors promulgated in the Divorce Code. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b); Endy v. Endy, 603 A.2d 641 (1992). Of foremost significance are the dependent spouse’s reasonable needs, income and earning capacity. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b)(13), (16); McCabe v. McCabe, 543 A.2d 558 (1988)(maintain standard of living); Geyer v. Geyer, 456 A.2d 1025 (1983)(accumulate retirement assets). Note that the 1988 Amendments to the Divorce Code eliminated the prerequisite that alimony be awarded only if the dependent spouse had insufficient property to meet his or her needs and could not support herself through appropriate employment. Cf. Diamond v. Diamond, 519 A.2d 1012 (1987)(pre-Amendment). As before, the trial court must consider the parties’ assets, including marital property received in equitable distribution. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b)(10)-(11), (16). Even where a dependent spouse receives the lion’s share of marital property, however, the court may award alimony to provide sufficient income to meet his or her reasonable needs. Nemoto v. Nemoto, 620 A.2d 1216 (1993)(wife received alimony in addition to 75% of marital estate). The needs of the custodial children also must be considered. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b)(7).

Several of the statutory factors relate to the income and employability of the parties. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701. “Where the husband was a sole shareholder of a corporation and there was evidence of manipulation and control of assets and income, the court looked to corporate and not merely personal income as the true reflection of Husband’s earning capacity.” Perlberger, Pennsylvania Divorce Code § 6.3.1 (1992 and Supp. 1994), citing Pacella v. Pacella, 492 A.2d 707 (1985); Ruth v. Ruth, 462 A.2d 1351 (1983); see also Pollock and Byrne, “Net Spendable Income Calculations in the Context of Depreciation and Business Expenses,” 14 Penna. Fam. Lwyr. 17 (October 1993)(“where an individual has an opportunity to control or influence his income, expenses or otherwise adjust the accounting practices of the business to alter ‘income’ for support purposes, the courts look beyond the corporate veil to determine earnings”). On the other hand, the age, health, education and work experience of the dependent spouse may hinder her employability and/or ability to accumulate retirement funds. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b)(1)-(3), (9). A dependent spouse is not required to accept any employment, but only appropriate employment consistent with his or her standard of living and station in life. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b)(17); McNulty v. McNulty, 500 A.2d 876 (1985). As with property distribution, the court must consider the income tax ramifications of the alimony award, if such factor is reasonably estimable and certain to occur. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b)(15); Hovis v. Hovis, 541 A.2d 1378 (1988).

Other factors enumerated in the Divorce Code contemplate the “equities” of the case, including the parties’ respective contributions to property acquisition or increased earning power, their standard of living, duration of the marriage and marital misconduct. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b)(5)-(8), (11)-(12) and (14). The parties’ standard of living during the marriage is probative to determine the dependent spouse’s reasonable needs. Edelstein v. Edelstein, 582 A.2d 1074 (1990).

For detailed information about spousal support and alimony pendente lite, see Pollock & Vertz, “Child Support, Spousal Support and Alimony Pendente Lite,” published in Fundamentals of Family Law (Pa. Bar Institute 2002).