to spousal maintenance. The trial court’s decree of dissolution includes an admirably thorough, careful, three-page list and division of the marital assets. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that it abused its discretion in awarding Karen 54% of the marital estate. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to amend the decree of dissolution to reflect that Karen is entitled to receive spousal maintenance for an indefinite period of time. BAILEY, J., concurs. VAIDIK, J., concurs in result. 1 . Charles, of course, is free at any time to seek a modification of the spousal maintenance award if he believes that Karen is no longer incapacitated. See In re Marriage of Erwin, 840 N.E.2d 385, 389 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (<HOLDING>). 2 . We also note, as did the trial court,
holding that there is no spousal exception to the statute holding that a trial court has broad discretion to modify a spousal maintenance award holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order holding that a rule 11 sanctions award need only be appropriate thereby according broad discretion to the trial court