¶1concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶2[¶ 55] Justices Crothers and Sand-strom would affirm the district court’s *706property and debt distribution. In the long term, because of the nature of the debt as student debt and Rhonda Lorenz’s earning potential, I agree with that distribution. Mark Lorenz’s pension is fixed. Rhonda Lorenz will have the opportunity to establish her own pension with a medical degree that was acquired' during the marriage. I would affirm that portion of the judgment distributing the property and debt of the parties.
¶3[¶ 56] However, on this record it is obvious that in the short term Rhonda Lorenz will not be able to pay the debt and provide for her living expenses on the income that she is to receive as a resident in her medical career, some $41,000 a year, and the $2,000 per year for five years that the district court awarded her to equalize the property and debt distribution.
¶4[¶ 67] Also, in the short term, Mark Lorenz’s earning capacity is significantly greater than that of Rhonda Lorenz, as discussed in the separate opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part. Furthermore, Mark Lorenz was allocated a significantly smaller portion of the debt than Rhonda Lorenz and he will not have to make payments on debt that she must make. Under these circumstances, it was error for the district court to refuse to award Rhonda Lorenz temporary spousal support.
¶5[¶ 58] I would reverse that portion of the judgment denying spousal support and remand to the district court for the purpose of awarding Rhonda Lorenz temporary spousal support.
¶6concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶7[¶ 60] The decision of the Court is contained in the opinion of the Chief Justice— to reverse on the issue of spousal support and to affirm the remainder of the judgment. For the reasons largely set forth in Justice Crothers’ opinion, I would affirm the judgment of the district court in its entirety.