two criteria from Codling; that is, protection from want or privation and facilitation of the production of income. We are, therefore, not concerned with the third criteria — rehabilitation. In reviewing the first two criteria, we note that the only evidence offered came from plaintiff and one other witness she produced. Defendants put on no evidence. The detailed findings reflect the relevant portions of plaintiff’s proof. Defendants do not claim the evidence does not support the findings of fact; rather, they contend the findings made do not support the conclusions. Thus, the standard of review in this case is not whether substantial evidence supports the findings as made, but, rather, whether those findings will support the conclusions reached. Cf. Arther v. Western Co. of N. Am. (<HOLDING>). We hold they do not. Before discussing the
holding that the lower courts findings were insufficient as a matter of law and remanding for the court to make the findings required under ars  25403 holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that trial courts limited findings were insufficient to allow determination of whether trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss his indictment on constitutional speedy trial grounds holding the trial courts findings were insufficient to support a lumpsum award holding the trial courts simple finding of frivolous to be insufficient to justify an award