Petitioner, Mary Anne Reynard, appeals the December 31,2002, order of the Coles County circuit court dissolving MaryAnne's marriage to respondent, Charles G. Reynard, and awardingMary Anne maintenance in the amount of $1,600 per month until thefirst to occur of the following contingencies: (1) the death ofeither party; (2) Mary Anne's remarriage; (3) Mary Anne's cohabitation with another person on a resident, continuing, conjugalbasis; or (4) completion of the January 1, 2013, payment. Weaffirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Mary Anne and Charles were married on January 29, 1969. They had two children: Rachel born in 1977 and Meghan born in1982. On March 6, 2001, Mary Anne filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. On December 31, 2002, the trial court entereda judgment of dissolution of marriage and an order that addressedmaintenance and the division of assets.

Both Mary Anne and Charles earned college degrees. Mary Anne earned her degree in English and took all of therequired undergraduate teaching classes. After graduation fromcollege, Mary Anne and Charles accepted teaching positions. Charles also attended law school at night. Upon graduation fromlaw school in May 1974, Charles became a McLean County assistantState's Attorney. The new job required the parties to move fromChicago to Bloomington/Normal, Illinois. Mary Anne, having justbeen promoted at Wells Recruiting Systems, quit her job and beganwork in Bloomington/Normal as a Hertz Rent-A-Car clerk and thenas a child-care worker in a day-care center.

Mary Anne became a homemaker in 1977 after the birth ofthe parties' first child, Rachel. In 1978, Charles entered the private practice of law. In 1979, Charles unsuccessfully ran forMcLean County State's Attorney. Mary Anne managed Charles'scampaign and cared for Rachel. To lend help financially, MaryAnne also became a part-time employee at the Regional Office ofEducation.

On October 14, 1982, Meghan was born. That same year,Mary Anne began hosting parties in people's homes for the sale ofcountry decorating merchandise. Mary Anne was successful and inone year earned $20,000 gross. She stopped hosting, however,after Meghan entered kindergarten in order to be home every nightduring the children's school years.

After losing the 1979 election, Charles returned toprivate practice. In 1987, Charles was appointed as the McLeanCounty State's Attorney. He ran for election in 1988 and for re-election in 1992 and 1996. Mary Anne assisted in all threecampaigns by setting appointments, distributing materials, andholding campaign meetings in the home.

Mary Anne testified her responsibilities for the careof the parties' children did not allow for full-time employment. Charles acknowledged that in addition to being his most significant volunteer in political campaigns, Mary Anne was a goodmother, helped out family finances through part-time employment,and had stuck with him through difficult times.

At the time of hearing, Meghan was a first-semestersophomore in college. Charles paid between $2,900 and $3,400 permonth to Wellesley for Meghan's schooling. This figure does notinclude other expenses such as medical and travel. Mary Anne was54 years old and in good health. She did receive psychotherapyand massages for fibromyalgia. Mary Anne worked as the coordinator of volunteers and college interns at the McLean County Museumof History. She began the position in May 1999 and earned$29,819 per year. Prior to this position, Mary Anne had been apart-time special education teaching assistant at University HighSchool for three years and a part-time teaching assistant atMetcalf Lab School for seven years. She never acquired a teaching license in Illinois because it was not required to teach as aspecial education teaching assistant and was not required inparochial schools.  Charles was 56 years old and also in goodhealth. He had recently won an election for circuit court judgeof McLean County. His projected earnings were $136,546 per year.

The trial court assigned Mary Anne 52% of the maritalassets valued at $346,495. The marital assets Mary Anne receivedincluded the parties' marital residence valued at $166,000, a1999 Honda CR-V, a $1,082 Citizens Savings Bank account, and fourSalomon Smith Barney accounts. Mary Anne received $48,404 innonmarital assets, including $11,167 in jewelry and a $37,237reimbursement from the marital estate for the nonmarital contribution Mary Anne made to a Salomon Smith Barney account.

Charles received $319,487 in marital assets, includinga home valued at $108,000 with an 80% mortgage remaining, fourSalomon Smith Barney accounts, and the parties' marital interestin a condominium lived in by the parties' daughter Rachel. Thecondo is valued at $107,000 and also has an 80% mortgage. Thetrial court also awarded Charles a 1996 Ford Windstar and a 2001Ford Taurus. The Taurus has a car loan for its full $15,000value. In terms of nonmarital property, Charles received quantities of stocks and funds acquired by gift, legacy, or descentfrom his mother, a $106,771 reimbursement from the maritalestate, and $12,906 of nonmarital debt in the form of a campaignloan. The court noted Charles has paid nearly all of Meghan'seducational expenses to date, and he indicates a willingness tocontinue making those payments. The court ordered Charles tocontinue paying Meghan's educational expenses and her car insurance. Finally, the court determined each party is entitled to50% of the other's retirement benefits to be paid through aQILDRO (qualified Illinois domestic relations order).

When fashioning the maintenance award, the trial courtconsidered the parties' financial-affairs affidavits. MaryAnne's affidavit indicated her average monthly expenses were$4,527. Mary Anne prepared the affidavit on May 24, 2001,averaging her expenses for the prior 12 months, although theparties separated on July 10, 2000, and she filed for divorce onMarch 6, 2000. The affidavit included many expenses for Meghan,who resided with Mary Anne when she prepared the affidavit. Meghan now lives elsewhere. At hearing, Mary Anne admitted herincome had increased since she had prepared the affidavit. MaryAnne also admitted some of her expenses were anticipatory, suchas the amounts for replacing appliances, her education, andpayments to the Internal Revenue Service. When she prepared theaffidavit, Charles was paying all of her household bills, including medical bills and food. The court adjusted Mary Anne'sprojected expenses for gardening, snow removal, household help,replacement of appliances, food, clothing, psychotherapy, lunchmoney, vacations, retirement plan, Internal Revenue Service, andAmerica On-Line. The court determined a more realistic estimateof Mary Anne's expenses at the time of hearing was $3,060 permonth.

Charles's financial-affairs affidavit indicates hismonthly net income from all sources, including interest anddividend payments is $7,973. His total average monthly expensesare $8,542.38, including expenses for Meghan but not including amaintenance payment.

The trial court found that although the parties established a good standard of living during the marriage, they didnot enjoy a lavish lifestyle. "They took vacations and provideda comfortable home for their two children. They maximized use ofthe automobiles and promptly paid their bills. Both Mary Anneand Charles have modified their lifestyles since their separation."

At hearing, Mary Anne called Dennis Knobloch to presentcalculations of each party's net disposable, after-tax income atvarying rates of maintenance. Knobloch testified that to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes, the trial court shouldaward maintenance somewhere between $3,700 per month and $3,800per month. Knobloch admitted his calculations were purelymathematical and did not consider statutory factors in determining maintenance. The court did not challenge Knobloch's methodology in calculating the parties' net disposable incomes, but itnoted the analysis failed to consider Charles's contribution'stoward Meghan's college educational expenses. The court awardedMary Anne maintenance in the amount of $1,600 per month until thefirst to occur of the following contingencies: (1) the death ofeither party; (2) Mary Anne's remarriage; (3) Mary Anne's cohabitation with another person on a resident, continuing, conjugalbasis; or (4) completion of the January 1, 2013 payment.

The trial court found Mary Anne's monthly net income,including the $1,600-per-month maintenance award, to be $3,040. In addition to this income, at the time of trial, Mary Annereceived $300 per month from a boarder and a $3,547 federalincome tax refund for the year 2001.

Notably, the trial court found:

"Charles['s] [f]inancial [a]ffairs [a]ffidavit seems to demonstrate an inability to pay maintenance in the court-ordered amount.

Nevertheless, Charles has income-producing assets and a borrowing ability that will enable him to meet this obligation. A higher maintenance obligation would adversely affect his ability to meet his own needs, resulting in a greater sacrifice by Charles in his standard of living than by Mary Anne in hers.

The $1,600 maintenance award affects the lifestyles of both parties, but avoids creating a substantial lifestyle deficit for either of them."

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Mary Anne argues she is entitled to amaintenance award of $3,750 a month to equalize the parties' netdisposable incomes.

"Maintenance issues are presented in a great number offactual situations and resist a simple analysis." In re Marriageof Mayhall, 311 Ill. App. 3d 765, 769, 725 N.E.2d 22, 25 (2000). The trial court has discretion to determine the propriety,amount, and duration of a maintenance award. A reviewing courtwill not reverse the trial court's maintenance determination absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Dunlap, 294Ill. App. 3d 768, 772, 690 N.E.2d 1023, 1026 (1998). Section504(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act(Dissolution Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2000)) sets forthfactors the court must consider when determining the amount andduration of maintenance awards. These factors include the incomeand present and future earning capacity of the parties; the needsof each party; any impairment of earning capacity due to devotingtime to domestic duties or having forgone or delayed opportunities due to the marriage; the time necessary to acquire appropriate education, training, and employment; the ability of the partyto support himself or herself; the standard of living establishedduring the marriage; the duration of the marriage; the age andphysical and emotional condition of the parties; contributionsand services by the party seeking maintenance to the education,training, or career of the other spouse; and any other factor thecourt expressly finds to be just and equitable. 750 ILCS5/504(a) (West 2000). The court is not required to give thefactors equal weight and has broad discretion to "grant a temporary or permanent maintenance award for either spouse in amountsand for periods of time as the court deems just." 750 ILCS5/504(a) (West 2000).

When determining the amount and duration of a maintenance award, the trial court must strike a balance that isreasonable under the circumstances in light of the goals ofsection 504. This court in Mayhall considered whether the 1993amendments to section 504(a) under Public Act 87-881 (Pub. Act87-881,