Cited by

Finally, the petitioner cites Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653 (1974), for the proposition that “[t]he purpose of alimony is not to provide a life- time profit-sharing plan, but rather, to encourage the recipient spouse to establish an independent source of income.” Calderwood’s observation is inapposite here, where the respondent is not seeking to “share in any windfall or

Consequently, “[t]he purpose of an order for support is not to provide a life-time profit-sharing plan.” Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653 (1974) (quotations and ellipsis omitted).

Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653 (1974) (explaining how “the husband’s ability to pay is a vital factor to be considered by the court”).

We have previously recognized that the purpose of alimony is not to provide a lifetime profit-sharing plan.

that “the primary pui’pose of alimony is to encourage the recipient spouse to establish an independent souxme of income.” See Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974).

Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 654, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974), appeal after remand, 115 N.H. 550, 345 A.2d 166 (1975); United States v. Mammoth Oil Co., 14 F.2d 705, 729 (8th Cir. 1926) (“a court of equity has the right to draw reasonable and *889 proper inferences from all the circumstances in the case, and especially from the silence of [the de

Nor was there evidence to indicate that the provisions of the revised order exceeded what was reasonably necessary to maintain the defendant’s standard of living, to the point of constituting an award simply of a share in the plaintiff’s recent prosperity, contrary to Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974).

Finally, as to the alimony awarded, the trial court failed to state why alimony should continue indefinitely, when the law is clear that the purpose of alimony is rehabilitative.

Relying on the notion, developed in Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974), that the primary purpose of alimony is to encourage the recipient spouse to establish an independent source of income, the master *161 ruled that the plaintiff would receive payments until February 3, 1987, at which time all alimony payments would cease.

In appropriate cases, a trial court may award alimony for a limited period in order to enable a wife to establish *451 her own source of income.

Contrary to the defendant’s characterization, we do not perceive the plaintiff as attempting to “share in any windfall or post-divorce prosperity” which has come to the defendant.

Ames v. Ames, 117 N.H. *873 554, 555, 374 A.2d 1181 (1977); Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974).

Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 357 A.2d 871 (1976); Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 327 A.2d 704 (1974).

the wife cannot demand a shifting galaxy of legal talent at her husband’s expense.” Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 655, 327 A.2d 704, 707 (1974) (citation omitted).

She is forced to live well below the standard which she enjoyed prior to the divorce and which is an important factor in considering what she should now receive.

In addition to the needs and current financial status of the parties, the circumstances to be considered include also the standard of living enjoyed by plaintiff at the time of the divorce, Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 675, 366 A.2d 479, 482 (1976); Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974), as well as the prior alimony orders in the amounts of $108 and $75 per month.

RSA 458:21; see Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 654, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974).

Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974); Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549, 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961).

*551 Memorandum Opinion Following the opinion of this court in Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 327 A.2d 704 (1974), the Trial Court (Dunfey, J.) after hearing, ordered on April 17, 1975 that the defendant’s “motion for discovery is denied on the condition that Walter A. Calderwood posts the sum of $15,000.00 with the clerk of court as security for any extension of the support order in issue that may be decree