Descripción de editorial
Hal H. Dunning, respondent-appellant (respondent), appeals from an adverse ruling of the trial court on his motion to terminate alimony. Respondent, in October 1982, filed a motion to terminate alimony. The trial court refused to allow an increase in the percentage of respondents military retirement payable as alimony, which was called for under the terms of the original decree. The trial court, however, refused to reduce alimony and ordered respondent to continue to pay 25.3 percent of his retirement pay as alimony. Respondent alleges two grounds for error on appeal: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to terminate, or reduce, respondents alimony obligations due to the decreased need of the petitioner; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to modify a provision in the original decree which expressed respondents monthly alimony obligation in terms of a percentage of his monthly retirement benefits. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to terminate, or reduce, respondents alimony obligations due to the decreased need of the petitioner. We also hold that the alimony award of 25.3 percent of respondents military retirement is not invalid per se, and that the trial courts ruling that petitioner will continue to receive alimony in the amount of 25.3 percent of respondents gross military retirement is affirmed to the extent this ruling is based on respondents present military retirement. Should there be an increase in the amount of the retirement, whether the 25.3 percent factor should be applied to the increase is to be determined in accordance with this opinion.