(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in all respects except that I am convinced that the trial court erred in failing to award permanent alimony of at least $500.00 per month as opposed to rehabilitative alimony for 5 years. As the majority opinion states:
Larry earns in excess of $68,000 per year, exclusive of his farm income. He received almost $50,000 more than Darlene in assets from the property distribution. The alimony award of $6,000 per year will reduce his taxable income.
It cannot be said that the trial court’s rehabilitative alimony award which enables a deaf Housewife assistance in reentering the job market after a ten-year abstinence is against reason and the evidence.
It seems obvious to me that Darlene’s medical condition [deafness] and 10 years absence from the work force will guarantee such permanent disparity in both earning ability and actual earnings that permanent alimony should have been awarded.* SDCL 25-4-41. If future circumstances were to prove us wrong, the amount of alimony could be modified upon a showing of change of circumstances. Id. Therefore, I would reverse and remand to require permanent alimony.
See, Johnson v. Johnson, 471 N.W.2d 156, 165 (S.D.1991) (Sabers, J., concurring specially):
Finally, in my view, the award of alimony was wholly inadequate in amount and duration, especially considering wife’s medical situation, her need for medical insurance and the permanent disparity in the earning ability of the two parties. Stubbe v. Stubbe, 376 N.W.2d 807, 808 (S.D.1985). Id.