JOHNS, Circuit Judge.
[¶ 1] Michael Mitchell Billion (Michael) appeals from a judgment and decree of divorce granted to Patricia Jane Speier Billion (Patricia), challenging the division of property, the award of alimony to Patricia, the amount of the child support award to Patricia, and the denial of his request for attorney fees. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
FACTS
[¶ 2] Michael and Patricia were married on May 12, 1979 in Sioux Falls, South, Dakota.
[229]*229The parties have two children, Mark, born January 7, 1981, and Jeff, born August 2, 1983.
[¶ 3] At the time of the marriage, Patricia was employed part-time at Western Bank while working toward her undergraduate degree. After leaving Western Bank, Patricia became employed in a clerical position with B. Dalton for a short period of time. She obtained her undergraduate degree in 1982, then her Masters Degree of Education in guidance and counselling in 1988. From 1988 to 1991, Patricia worked as a contract counselor at Lutheran Social Services. From 1991 to the present, she has worked as a counselor at Mental Health Associates of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for approximately four to eight hours per week. Her earning capacity is $30,000 a year.
[¶ 4] Michael held both a Juris Doctorate degree and a Masters of Business Administration degree at the time of the marriage, and was a certified public accountant and partner in Henry Scholten and Company, an accounting firm in Sioux Falls. In 1990, Michael left Henry Scholten and Company, selling his interest in the partnership to the remaining partners. He then became employed as an attorney with the law firm of Woods, Fuller, Schultz & Smith of Sioux Falls, where he continues to be employed. His annual salary is $85,000.
[¶ 5] The trial court divided the assets of the parties into “marital” and “non-marital.” The value of the “marital” assets totaled $676,017, which figure is the difference between the appraised valuations and the liabilities thereon. Of this, $340,283 was awarded to Patricia and $335,734 was awarded to Michael. Patricia was allowed a credit of $7,400 on the amount awarded to her which represents the difference in values of the “marital” assets initially contributed by both parties. This credit resulted in the trial court’s net division of the “marital assets” of $332,883 to Patricia and $335,734 to Michael.
[¶ 6] The “non-marital” assets were all found to be Patricia’s sole property and are three in number. The first is the Patricia Speier Trust, of which Patricia is both the grantor and beneficiary and which is fully revocable by her. It is comprised of cash, life insurance, stocks, bonds, notes and real estate with a total value of $390,047. The various individual items found in this trust were all given to Patricia by her parents, either before or during her marriage to Michael, and either represent the value as given or their appreciated value. The second asset is the Sequoia Funds investment with a value of $172,185. This asset was purchased by Patricia with proceeds from her trust. The third asset is Patricia’s fractional interest in her paternal grandmother’s trust, the Irma Speier Trust. The trial court did not value this asset.
[¶7] The trial court granted Patricia a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. It awarded Patricia and Michael joint legal custody of Mark and Jeff; primary physical custody was awarded to Patricia, subject to Michael’s reasonable visitation rights. The trial court awarded Patricia child support of $1,237 per month and $600 per month in rehabilitative alimony for a period of one year. The parties’ mutual requests for attorney fees were denied.
[¶ 8] Michael appeals on the following issues:
[¶ 9] I. Whether the trial court erred in finding that certain properties were treated by the parties as belonging solely to Patricia and whether the trial court’s action in setting aside this property for Patricia was an abuse of discretion?
[¶ 10] II. Whether the trial court’s award of alimony to Patricia was an abuse of discretion?
[¶ 11] III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in calculating child support by mathematical extrapolation over and above the maximum guidelines set forth at SDCL § 25-7-6.2?
[¶ 12] IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award Michael his attorney fees?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶ 13] We first note our standards of review for the issues presented in this case. It is settled law that we review a trial court’s [230]*230findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Parsons v. Parsons, 490 N.W.2d 733, 736 (S.D.1992) {Parsons II). Under this standard, we will not overturn the trial court’s findings unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. (citing Hilbrands v. Hilbrands, 429 N.W.2d 750 (S.D.1988)).
[¶ 14] This Court will not disturb a trial court’s division of property, the award or denial of alimony, the award of child support or the award or denial of attorney fees unless it clearly appears from the record that it abused its discretion. Vander Pol v. Vander Pol, 484 N.W.2d 522 (S.D.1992); Kanta v. Kanta, 479 N.W.2d 505 (S.D.1991); Johnson v. Johnson, 471 N.W.2d 156 (S.D.1991); Fox v. Fox, 467 N.W.2d 762 (S.D.1991); Nelson v. Nelson, 454 N.W.2d 533 (S.D.1990). “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.” Kanta, 479 N.W.2d at 507, (quoting Gross v. Gross, 855 N.W.2d 4, 7 (S.D.1984)). In our review, we do not determine whether we would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion. Nelson, supra.
ANALYSIS
[¶ 15] I. Property Division
[¶ 16] “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract....” SDCL 25-1-1. When a man and a woman marry, they “contract toward each other obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support.” SDCL 25-2-1.1 Other than for the duty of support, a spouse does not have any vested rights in the property of his or her mate during the course of their marriage.2 This means that spouses are entitled to maintain their property separate and apart and are entitled to do with it as they see fit.3
[¶ 17] The right to own and use one’s separate property is subject to the spouse’s right of support. This right is inalienable except to the extent it is modified or waived in an agreement which is entered into subsequent to marriage and in contemplation of separation or divorce. Connolly v. Connolly, 270 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1978); SDCL 25-2-13.4 However, even though parties can [231]*231enter into support agreements post-marriage and in contemplation of separation or divorce, these agreements are always subject to rejection by a court, and, if approved, to later modification. Connolly, supra.
[¶ 18] The concept that one’s individual property is subject to his or her spouse’s right of support, is carried over in South Dakota’s statute which provides for an equitable division of the parties’ property upon a divorce. SDCL 25-4-44. SDCL 25-4-44 provides:
When a divorce is granted, the courts may make an equitable division of property belonging to either or both, whether the title to such property is in the name of the husband or the wife. In making such division of the property, the court shall have regard for equity and the circumstances of the parties.
The second sentence of this statute clearly states that a court must consider both equity and the circumstances of the parties when it makes a property division. Interestingly, the “circumstances of the parties” language also appears in the statute which allows for alimony following a divorce. SDCL 25-4-41 provides:
Where a. divorce is granted, the court may compel one party to make such suitable allowance to the other party for support during the life of that other party or for a shorter period, as the court may deem just, having regard to the circumstances of the parties represented; and the court may from time to time modify its orders in these respects.
It must also be noted that several of the factors traditionally considered for the purpose of a property division are the same factors to be considered when there is a request for post-divorce alimony. Those common factors are: the length of marriage; the age and health of the parties; and the competency of each to earn a living. The age, health and competency of a individual to earn a living are all very important factors one must consider when a spouse claims that he or she is unable to support himself or herself through his or her labors. There is a symbiotic relationship between SDCL 25-4-44 and SDCL 25-4-41. If a court determines that one spouse does not have the ability to support himself or herself through his or her labors and does not have sufficient assets of his or her own and is, therefore, in need of support, then a court might award him or her assets he or she would otherwise not be entitled to. If the court awards a spouse in need of support more assets than what he or she would otherwise be entitled to and/or awards him or her certain income producing assets, then the need for post-divorce alimony can be reduced or obviated.5 Because of this symbiotic relationship, this court always reviews property divisions and post-divorce alimony awards in conjunction with each other. Heckenlaible v. Heckenlaible, 1996 SD 32, ¶ 20, 545 N.W.2d 481, 485.
[¶ 19] Michael contends that SDCL 25-44r4 requires a trial court to place all of the property of the parties into one pot labeled “marital property” and, thereafter, divide it equitably. He further contends that because the trial court set aside three assets [232]*232for Patricia, it erred as a matter of law and, thus, abused its discretion.
[¶20] We disagree with Michael’s “one pot” interpretation of SDCL 25-444 and, further, are of the opinion that his argument elevates form over substance. Just recently in Heckenlaible, 1996 SD at ¶8, 545 N.W.2d at 483, we stated that a “trial court has broad discretion in determining whether property is marital in nature and subject to division.” More specifically as to various types of property, we said in Voelker v. Voelker that “[t]he decision whether to include inherited property as part of the marital property to be divided is within the discretion of the trial court.” 520 N.W.2d 903, 907 (S.D.1994) (citing Laird v. Laird, 322 N.W.2d 254, 256 (S.D.1982)) (emphasis added). Again, in Gamos v. Gamos, we “noted that with respect to inherited property it is not ipso facto excluded from consideration in the overall division of property, but rather it is in the trial court’s discretion whether [it] ... should be excluded in making that determination.” 376 N.W.2d 571, 573 (S.D.1985) (citing Balvin v. Balvin, 301 N.W.2d 678 (S.D.1981); Buseman v. Buseman, 299 N.W.2d 807 (S.D.1980); Laird, supra.) (emphasis added). And, finally, in Strickland v. Strickland, we said: “[t]his Court has consistently held that the trial court has discretion in determining how to consider premarital assets and gifts during a marriage; [whether to include or exclude them from the marital estate].” 470 N.W.2d 832, 836 (S.D.1991) (citing Lien v. Lien, 278 N.W.2d 436 (S.D.1979)) (emphasis added).
[¶ 21] Under the language of our statute and the caselaw, it is not important whether the court creates “marital” and “non-marital” estate pots or whether it places all of the property of the parties, whether individually or jointly held, in one pot. What is important is that the court, before it sets aside certain properties as “non-marital,” consider the seven principal factors we have repeatedly held must be considered in making an equitable property division. Voelker, 520 N.W.2d at 907. The factors are: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the value of the property owned by the parties; (3) the ages of the parties; (4) the health of the parties; (5) the competency of the parties to earn a living; (6) the contribution of each party to the accumulation of the property; and (7) the income-producing capacity of the parties’ assets. Id. at 907-8 (citations omitted). Only in the case where one spouse has made no or de minimis contributions to the acquisition or maintenance of an item of property and has no need for support, should a court set it aside as “non-marital” property.
[¶ 22] In finding of fact # 8, the trial court found that “[e]ach party brought into the marriage various premarital assets.” In finding of fact #9, the trial court found:
During the course of the marriage, plaintiff received additional gifts from her family that were placed in trust. The Court finds that it was the intent that these gifts were not to be treated as marital property and, in fact, were not treated as marital property. This property was separate and maintained that way.
[¶ 23] Michael contends that the trial court erred in its finding of fact #9 that the parties treated the Patricia Billion Trust and the Sequoia Funds investment as Patricia’s sole property. Instead, Michael argues that the evidence shows that he substantially contributed to both of the assets in the way of money and services, thus converting the assets to “marital” assets.
[¶ 24] Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that the trial court’s finding is not clearly erroneous for the following reasons. First, it is true that the trial court found that certain monies from the separate sales of a residence and shares of stock were placed in the Patricia Billion Trust and the Sequoia Funds investment, respectively. The trial court, however, gave these facts due consideration when it excluded these sums from the respective assets and placed them in the “marital” property pot for division.
[¶ 25] Second, the assets were given only to Patricia by her family. There is no question that they were ever given jointly to Patricia and Michael.
[¶ 26] Third, albeit he did review quarterly reports, Michael never exercised any control [233]*233over any of the assets found in either of the trusts or in the Sequoia Funds. Historically, the investment decisions were made by the bank and by Patricia’s father, who held a power of attorney to treat the real estate in Patricia’s trust as he saw fit.
[¶ 27] Fourth, by the terms of her trust and her Last Will and Testament, Patricia made it clear that she would dispose of her property as she saw fit. Her initial trust instrument entered in 1972 (prior to her marriage to Michael) provided that her estate would go to her children, but if she did not have any survive her, then to her sisters. In 1981, after her marriage to Michael, she made amendments to her trust but she continued to provide that her estate would go to her children; if they did not survive her, it would then go to her sisters. It was not until 1991 that Patricia executed a will leaving the home and its furnishings, as well as the motor vehicles, to Michael. The will provides for the rest of her estate to go to her trust under which the balance of her estate will go to her children; only if they do not survive her, would it then go to Michael.
[¶28] Fifth and finally, Michael’s perception of his and Patricia’s respective rights in the assets acquired by Patricia from her family, is reflected in a waiver that he executed on the same day and month in 1981 that Patricia executed her first amendment to her trust. This waiver provided:
I, Michael Billion, the lawful spouse of Patricia Jane Speier Billion, after full and fair disclosure of the value of the property and the estate of my spouse and the nature of my rights in these assets, do hereby waive all right, title, interest, equity and estate which I may now or in the future have in or to the property or estate of the above named spouse, particularly as to the elective share provisions under SDCL SOSA.
By executing this waiver, Michael acknowledged that Patricia’s property was hers to do with as she saw fit and that, further, he would not be entitled to any of her assets if she predeceased him, since his children would then be entitled to all of said property as beneficiaries of Patricia’s trust.
[¶ 29] We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that the parties treated Patricia’s trust and the Sequoia Funds as her separate property. We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside these two assets and the Irma Speier Trust for Patricia as Michael made only de minimus contributions to them and he has made no showing of a need for support from Patricia.
[¶ 30] The remaining question is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it divided the “marital” assets. Michael’s argument essentially is that since he contributed $1,447,239 in earned income to the marriage from 1979 through 1993, and since Patricia’s earned income was $40,416 during that time, he should have received more than 50 percent. Patricia, however, contributed more than her earnings to this marriage. Over the course of the marriage she withdrew the sum of $398,019 from her trust and Sequoia Funds which was used for family acquisitions and expenses. She also performed the duties of a mother and homemaker, which duties we have consistently held “constitute a valuable contribution to the marital property.” Johnson, 471 N.W.2d at 160.
[¶ 31] Considering the seven factors mentioned above, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the “marital property.” Our considerations include the fact that we are dealing with a sixteen year marriage, that Michael is in his late 40’s and Patricia is in her early 40’s, that both parties enjoy relatively good physical and mental health conditions, that Michael’s established ability to earn a living is far greater than Patricia’s and that it most likely will continue to be, and that Michael received $277,855 in investment accounts and various liquid assets in comparison to the sum of $117,733 received by Patricia.
[¶ 32] We affirm the trial court on its division of all of the parties’ property.
[¶ 33] II. Alimony
[¶ 34] Michael contends that the trial court’s finding that Patricia was in need of financial assistance to meet her present liv-[234]*234mg expenses was clearly erroneous and, for that reason, it abused its discretion in awarding her $600 per month for one year for rehabilitative alimony.
The factors to be considered in awarding ordinary alimony are: “the length of the marriage; the respective earning capacity of the parties; their respective financial condition after the property division; their respective age, health and physical condition; their station in life or social standing; and the relative fault in the termination of the marriage.” Additional factors that must be considered when awarding rehabilitative alimony are the requesting party’s foregone educational and employment opportunities during the marriage; the length of absence from the job market; and the skills and time necessary to become self-sufficient.
Jones v. Jones, 1996 SD 2, ¶ 21, 542 N.W.2d 119, 124 (citations omitted).
[¶35] The trial court based its award of rehabilitative alimony of $600 a month for a period of one year on the rationale that it would take a year for Patricia to reach her earning capacity of $30,000 per annum and that in the interim she would be experiencing a shortfall in her income6 over her expenses. While the court and counsel characterized the alimony as rehabilitative alimony, we are of the opinion that the award does not so qualify in this case. The purpose of rehabilitative alimony is “to permit a spouse the means necessary to enable him or her to refresh or enhance job skills necessary to become self-sufficient, and provide financial support while the party is obtaining necessary training.” Johnson, 471 N.W.2d at 163, (citing Baltzer v. Baltzer, 422 N.W.2d 584 (S.D.1988); Hautala v. Hautala, 417 N.W.2d 879 (S.D.1988)). See also Parsons II. In this case Patricia has all of the training and skills necessary to practice her chosen profession. However, “although we urge the use of careful and consistent language, the issue is not the name placed on the alimony, but whether the record supports the award.” Hautala, 417 N.W.2d at 882. Hence, we analyze Patricia’s request and the court’s award as one for ordinary alimony.
[¶ 36] The trial court did not find and we are unable to glean from the record that Patricia will no longer have the benefit of her marital right of support because of any fault on the part of Michael. In fact, Michael did not want this divorce and, at first, denied that any ground for divorce existed. Thus, we do not find any equitable reason for the support award.
[¶37] The trial court grounded its award on Patricia’s need for financial assistance for the one year period. While the trial court considered the actual income derived from all of the assets awarded to Patricia, both “marital” and “non-marital,” it apparently did not consider the value of the “non-marital” assets in arriving at its conclusion that Patricia had such a need. When we consider the value of Patricia’s “non-marital” assets (not even knowing the value of Patricia’s interest in the Irma Speier Trust) in connection with the value of her “marital” assets and the other income found by the trial court, we are left with the definite impression that Patricia has no need for financial assistance, but rather, has the financial wherewithal to live comfortably within the lifestyle she claims. We therefore conclude that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Patricia is in need of temporary support from Michael and we further conclude that, when all of the ordinary alimony factors are considered, it abused its discretion in awarding her any amount of alimony. We reverse on this issue.
[¶ 38] III. Child Support Calculation
[¶ 39] The combined net monthly income of Michael and Patricia exceeds the maximum income provided for in the child support guidelines of SDCL 25-7-6.2.
Recognizing this fact, the trial court set a combined child support obligation of $1,883 [235]*235per month by mathematically extrapolating from the guidelines.7 The trial court compared the incomes of Michael and Patricia and then found that Michael was responsible for 65.7 percent of the support obligation, which resulted in a monthly support obligation of $1,237.
[¶ 40] The trial court based its actions on the provisions of SDCL 25-7-6.9. SDCL 25-7-6.9 provides:
For a combined net income above the schedule in § 25-7-6.2, the child support obligation shall be established at an appropriate level, taking into account the actual needs and standard of living of the child.
In Bloom v. Bloom, 498 N.W.2d 213 (S.D.1993), we analyzed this statute and the previous cases interpreting it. Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125 (S.D.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 895, 113 S.Ct. 272, 121 L.Ed.2d 200 (1992) and Jones v. Jones, 472 N.W.2d 782 (S.D.1991). There we said that Earley establishes:
the rule that for parties with a combined net monthly income above the amount contemplated in the child support schedules, the trial court may calculate support by mathematical extrapolation, but it is not obligated to do so. Rather, the essential inquiry remains the actual needs and standard of living of the children.
Bloom, 498 N.W.2d at 217 (emphasis in original). Furthermore, in Ochs v. Nelson, 538 N.W.2d 527, 530 (S.D.1995), we just recently said:
In Jones, this Court stated that a party requesting an upward adjustment above the guidelines has the burden of proving the child’s needs and standard of living. 472 N.W.2d at 785. There, an upward adjustment was proper because the children’s needs were not being met.
[[Image here]]
Yet a child’s necessities are not the only consideration. “(T]he essential inquiry remains the actual needs and standard of living of the children.” Bloom, 498 N.W.2d at 217. (emphasis added).
[¶ 41] Patricia offered evidence at trial that her monthly cost of living for herself and the two boys was $5,100. Michael points out that the $5,100 does not include a mortgage expense but does include such expenses as a personal trainer for Jeff and average monthly expenses of $1,600 for keeping Patricia’s and Mark’s show horses. Michael contends that the trial court abused its discretion in setting a monthly joint child support obligation in the amount of $1,883 because this amount requires him to provide for luxuries and extravagances and that it is not related to the reasonable needs of his children. He argues, citing SDCL 25-7-6.1, that child support encompasses only necessary support. SDCL 25-7-6.1 provides, in part, that “[t]he parents of a child are jointly and severally obligated for the necessary maintenance, education and support of the child in accordance with their respective means.” Obviously, the word “necessary,” as used in § 25-7-6.1, is a relative term in that it is modified by the words “in accordance with [the parents’] ... respective means.” Thus the term “necessary” will mean something different in each individual case depending on the incomes of the parents. This concept is carried through in § 25-7-6.2 in that the amount of necessary support for one or more children increases with each incremental increase in the incomes of the parents. Finally, this same concept is carried through in § 25-7-6.9. While the statute speaks in terms of a child’s standard of living, “[o]bviously, in divorce cases a child’s standard of living reflects the parent’s standard of living before they separated. Standard of living remains an important factor after a divorce.” Ochs, 538 N.W.2d at 531.
[¶ 42] In Ochs we asked and answered the question,
[i]f children must endure their parents’ poverty, should they not also share then-affluence? We have previously recognized [236]*236a child’s interest in a parent’s well-to-do standard of living. In Saint-Pierre v. Samt-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d 250, 259 (S.D. 1984), the mother had “a demonstrated ability to earn a substantial income from her medical practice.” Although the Saint-Pierre children were young, they were permitted to continue in a standard of living their mother’s income provided in the past when the parents lived together. Id. (citing Wallahan v. Wallahan, 284 N.W.2d 21 (S.D.1979)).
Id.
[¶43] The trial found that Michael’s children were raised in a very comfortable lifestyle which would call for monthly expenditures in excess of the amount set forth in the guidelines. The trial court then concluded that the actual needs and lifestyles of the children warranted a support amount of $1,883 ($941.50 per child) per month. Michael does not claim that the finding of fact is clearly erroneous. Rather, when his arguments are distilled, he complains that he should not have to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed by his children prior to the divorce when they are not in his physical custody. His concern is that while his children will receive a benefit from his payment, his ex-spouse will also receive a benefit since she shares the lifestyle enjoyed by the children.
[¶ 44] Although Patricia will undoubtedly derive an indirect benefit from the fact that Michael will be paying $1,237 per month in child support payments, there is nothing this Court or any other court can do about that. Anytime anyone receives financial assistance, he or she will receive a benefit. The indirect financial benefit a custodial spouse receives cannot serve as a justification for denial of support to children whose actual needs and standard of living warrant a particular award.
[¶ 45] Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that Michael is not paying an unfair proportion of his children’s support needs when those needs are considered in connection with the standard of living they have previously enjoyed. The decision of the trial court was within the scope of the evidence and, therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We affirm the trial court on this issue.
[¶ 46] IV. Attorney Fees and Costs
[¶ 47] Michael contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award him attorney fees when, even though he did not seek the divorce, he was forced to expend monies in the defense of his legitimate interests. Whether one seeks a divorce is not a factor a court considers when it is presented with a request for attorney fees.
[¶ 48] Attorney fees in domestic relations cases are provided for by SDCL 15-17-38. It provides, in pertinent part:
The court, if appropriate, in the interests of justice, may award payment of attorney’s fees in all cases of divorce, ... support or alimony. The court may award the fees before or after judgment or order.
[¶49] This statute and its predecessor, SDCL 15-17-7,8 require a two-step analysis:
First, the court must determine what constitutes a reasonable attorney fee. This requires consideration of (1) the amount and value of the property involved, (2) the intricacy and importance of the litigation, (3) the labor and time involved, (4) the skill required to draw the pleadings and try the case, (5) the discovery utilized, (6) whether there were complicated legal problems, (7) the time required for the trial, and (8) whether briefs were required. Second, it must determine the necessity for such fee. That is, what portion of that fee, if any, should be allowed as costs to be paid by the opposing party. This requires consideration of the parties’ relative worth, income, liquidity, and whether either party [237]*237unreasonably increased the time spent on the case.
Fox, 467 N.W.2d at 768. (citations omitted).
[¶50] Finding that each party had more than sufficient assets and income to pay their respective attorney fees and finding that neither party had “brought this matter to court on an issue that could be termed frivolous or not without support”9 the trial court concluded that each party was to pay their own attorney fees. The record reflects that the trial court considered the relevant factors in its determination denying attorney fees. We hold that the trial court has not abused its discretion and, thus, affirm on this issue.
CONCLUSION
[¶ 51] We reverse the trial court’s award of alimony and affirm the property division, the child support award and the denial of M-chael’s request for attorney fees. Further, both parties have filed verified motions for appellate attorney fees; which motions we deny after consideration of the two-step analysis mentioned previously.
[¶ 52] MILLER, C.J., and KONENKAMP, J., concur.
[¶ 53] SABERS, J., specially concurs in part and dissents in part.
[¶ 54] GILBERTSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
[¶ 55] JOHNS, C.J., for AMUNDSON, J., disqualified.