only $78.52 per week if he is required to meet his obligations, both parties will be working within restricted budgets. Deborah, who earns approximately $16,944 per year, will be the primary care provider of the children and will have to find a new home. Furthermore, Samuel’s unwillingness to take the steps necessary to sell or mortgage the marital home in order to pay Deborah her share of its value does not show that he is unable to pay. In fight of the significant disparity in the parties’ incomes, the essentially equal division of the marital property, and Samuel’s ability, though limited, to pay the awards, the financial obligations of the divorce judgment as a whole and the award of spousal support in particular are not plainly and unmistakably unjust. Cf. Beattie, 650 A.2d at 953 (<HOLDING>); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 507 A.2d 596, 600-01
holding that the trial court exceeded its discretion because its judgment created financial obligations for the husband that after deducting the wifes periodicalimony award from the husbands net income exceeded his remaining income holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted holding that combined obligation of 3200 that exceeded husbands monthly income of 2525 is unjust in fight of the parties similar earning capacities holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay holding that the statement of current monthly income was the presumptive amount of projected disposable income but presumption could be rebutted by the debt or upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances