standard in setting the amount of permanent spousal support. He contends that the trial court in setting the amount of spousal support used the standard of living to which Mrs. Fontana was accustomed to during the marriage — awarding lifestyle expenses — as opposed to basic necessities — awarding maintenance expenses. As noted, the trial court adopted the amount in the Spreadsheet as the spousal support award. Mr. Fontana contends that the Spreadsheet improperly includes lifestyle expenses — such as beauty salon and health club — that should have been excluded. He also contends that the Spreadsheet improperly included miscellaneous expenses, such as “other” and “cash,” that likewise should have been excluded. See Parker v. Parker, 98-817 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 634 So.2d 1231, 1233 (<HOLDING>). Mrs. Fontana counters that the Spreadsheet
holding that statutory written warranty definition does not encompass statements in brochures and advertising holding that support does not encompass miscellaneous expenses holding that a promise to pay postmajority educational expenses was nondischargeable support even though the relevant states law does not require such support past the age of majority holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid holding that an agreement to pay sons college education expenses was nondischargeable support even though arkansas law does not require payment of such expenses