At the time of trial, Karen was disabled — “incapacitated,” using the statutory term — such that she was unable to support herself. She had just begun new treatments for her two disabling conditions, and although her treating physician acknowledged the possibility that the new treatments would enable her to find suitable employment at some point in the future, at the time of his deposition he did not attest that this result was certain to occur. Indeed, he specifically stated that more time was needed to evaluate the efficacy of the new treatments. Based on this record, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that Karen’s incapacity was finite and certain to be cured within six months of the order. Cf. Haville v. Haville, 825 N.E.2d 375, 378 (Ind.2005) (<HOLDING>). We hasten to note that we are not saying as a
holding that duration of spousal maintenance award is measured by the duration of the period of incapacity and survives the death of the obligor recognizing that public policy favors limiting the duration of spousal maintenance to encourage a transition toward independence holding that the relevant factors include the nature of the scheme the identity of the participants the quality frequency and duration of each conspirators transactions and the commonality of time and goals holding that a trial court has broad discretion to modify a spousal maintenance award holding that there is no spousal exception to the statute