concurring and dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
While I concur with the majority’s upholding the trial court’s $289 per month distribution to Helen from the guardianship’s monthly income, I do call into question the majority’s upholding of the additional $10,-000 distribution. Under the modern Indiana necessities doctrine, each spouse is primarily liable for his or her independent debts. Bartrom, 618 N.E.2d at 8. However, when there is a shortfall between a dependent spouse’s necessary expenses and separate funds, the law imposes limited secondary liability upon the financially superior spouse. Id. The liability is limited and secondary in the sense that it is bounded by the financially superior spouse’s ability to pay and extended only to those personal needs and obligations which the debtor spouse cannot satisfy personally. Id.
As the majority notes, the evidence here discloses that when Helen married John in 1993, she brought to the marriage assets *1171totaling approximately $7,000. Her monthly income, consisting of social security income and interest from a pension fund,- totaled $638. The testimony of the proceedings established that Helen needed more than $638 per month to meet monthly expenses. However, no evidence was presented establishing Helen’s need for the additional $10,000. As Indiana’s doctrine of necessities dictates that money from the financially superior spouse should be awarded only to cover those needs which the debtor spouse cannot satisfy personally, I would remand for either a statement of reasons justifying the $10,000 award or a vacation of the award altogether.