were married twenty-six years; 2) appellant earns $40,000 per year where appellee earns $17,000 per year; 3) appellee’s earning capacity is not likely to improve; 4) appellee has been unable to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage; 5) appellee was the major contributing homemaker and child rearer; 6) appellant was guilty of several long-term instances of marital misconduct; 7) the parties’ assets are insufficient to support appellee until appellant’s pension distribution. From the above, it is clear that the divorce court did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony to appellee. In a factually similar case, this Court has held that factors such as the above illustrate an entitlement to alimony. Nuttall v. Nuttall, 386 Pa.Super. 148, 562 A.2d 841 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa.Super. 113, 576 A.2d
holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety is exempt from attachment or execution for the sole debts of husband holding that alimony was justified where wife was homemaker with lesser job skills than husband wife had lesser earning capacity and husband was guilty of marital misconduct holding trial court did not abuse discretion in setting aside inheritance exclusively to wife where it was kept in wifes name separate from husband and husband did nothing to contribute to the accumulation of the funds which were not treated as marital property or commingled with other marital assets holding that although husband and wife were both fit and proper persons to have custody of the child custody in a dissolution action should have been awarded to wife the biological parent in light of blood test showing that husband was not the childs biological father