Christopher Foster, Appellant v. Leah Foster, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed the rehabilitative-alimony and attorney-fee awards, holding that the 2013 statutory amendment did not replace the traditional alimony factors with a separate set of factors for rehabilitative alimony. It also held that a rehabilitation plan is permissive rather than mandatory and need not contain specific educational, training, or employment requirements. The court concluded that the amount and ten-year duration of the alimony award, as well as the attorney fees and litigation expenses, were within the circuit court's discretion. Chief Justice Brill, dissenting, and Justice Wood, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have rejected or remanded the rehabilitative-alimony award because it did not sufficiently promote rehabilitation.