concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment in this case. However, I take exception to that portion of the majority opinion which tends to say that an award of maintenance may be made absent a specific finding of mental or physical incapacity materially affecting the spouse's ability to be self-supportive because if the award is designated specifically as "support" or "maintenance", such a finding is implicit in that designation and need only be supported by the evidence. I believe this statement is not supported by the cases cited, is contrary to the clear language of the statute, Ind. Code § 81-1-11.5-9(c) and is in direct contravention of the holding of this court in Savage v. Savage, (1978) 176 Ind.App. 89, 374 N.E.2d 536.
In Melnik v. Melnik, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 969, 972, the statement relied upon by the majority is dictum. Melnik involved a denial of a request for maintenance. The holding in Melnik is that no specific findings are necessary to support a denial of maintenance.
Farthing v. Farthing, (1978) 178 Ind.App. 336, 382 N.E.2d 941, also cited by the majority, is an appeal from a modification of a maintenance award. The original award did not contain the statutorily specified finding, but, apparently, that defect was never questioned. The court found in the modification order that the wife was still mentally incapacitated. Thus, despite the language in Farthing that a specific finding is not necessary and that an award clearly designated as "maintenance" implies the requisite finding, the fact is there was a finding the wife was mentally incapacitated.
In Savage this court stated that "[i]f the trial court desires to award periodic payments to one spouse as support, then it must make the requisite finding under IC 1971, 81-1-11.5-9(c) and designate the payments as such." 176 Ind.App. at 94, 374 N.E.2d at 540. Further, in In re Marriage of Lewis, (1977) 172 Ind.App. 463, 360 N.E.2d 855, trans. denied, a case noted in Farthing as requiring such a finding where *405the award is designated other than maintenance, this court clearly stated that "[albsent a finding that [the wife] is 'physically or mentally incapacited to the extent that the ability of such incapacitated spouse to support ... herself is materially affected," the trial court may make no provision for maintenance." 172 Ind.App. at 466, 360 N.E.2d at 857. I read no words limiting that holding as suggested in footnote 2 in Farthing. In my view, the language quoted from Savage and Lewis clearly holds that the court must make the specific finding called for by the statute if maintenance is awarded.
While I disagree with the statements of the majority regarding the necessity of such a finding, I agree that maintenance was not awarded, hence no finding was necessary. The language employed which I find objectionable has no impact upon the ultimate decision in this case, which decision is correct. Therefore, I concur.