We disagree. "The disposition of marital property is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and reviewable only for an abuse of discretion." Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 353 (Me. 1994). See 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-A (1981 Supp. 1996) (governing disposition of property, inter alia, in a proceeding for a divorce).

She asserts that the court should have made her and Donald co-owners of the marital property because there was no reliable valuation data for the property and co-ownership was the only way to insure an equitable distribution. [¶ 17] We review the trial court's disposition of marital property for an abuse of discretion. Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 353 (Me. 1994) (citation omitted). "Absent a violation of some positive rule of law, we will overturn the trial court's decision `only if it results in a plain and unmistakable injustice, so apparent that it is instantly visible without argument.'"

[¶ 8] "The disposition of marital property is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and reviewable only for an abuse of discretion." Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 353 (Me. 1994). Recently, in Smith v. Smith, 1997 ME 29, 690 A.2d 970, 971-72 (1997), we vacated a divorce judgment on the ground that the trial court erred by dividing equally between the parties the stock holdings in closely held corporations.

In reviewing alimony awards, we "defer to the discretion of the trial court unless `the court has violated some positive rule of law or has reached a result which is plainly and unmistakenly an injustice that is so apparent as to be instantly visible without argument.'" Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 354 (Me. 1994) (quoting Bryant v. Bryant, 411 A.2d 391, 395 (Me. 1980) (citations omitted)). Factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

Id. Marital debt is apportioned pursuant to the same considerations as the division of marital property. Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 354 (Me. 1994). Where the circumstances indicate that a spouse engaged in economic misconduct, this behavior may factor into the equitable distribution of property and the award of spousal support.

We review a court's distribution of marital property for an abuse of discretion. SeeLaqualia v. Laqualia , 2011 ME 114, ¶ 10, 30 A.3d 838 ; Arey v. Arey , 651 A.2d 351, 353 (Me. 1994). We are unpersuaded by Dow's other arguments regarding the court's property distribution and do not address them further.

It was not error for the court to enter the child support order based on the parties' current earning capacities. See Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 355 (Me. 1994). 5. Spousal Support

2003), nothing in the statute requires that the parties must enjoy the exact same standard of living after the divorce as they did during the marriage. See Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 354-55 (Me. 1994) (upholding an award of $1 per year nominal support although there was evidence of a higher than average standard of living during the marriage). [¶ 15] Here, because the court thoroughly considered all of the factors listed in section 951-A(5), and there is evidence to support the court's conclusion that $135,000 a year in spousal support would be excessive, the Superior Court did not act beyond its discretion when it awarded Ackerman $6500 a month in spousal support.

A court must consider all the factors listed in section 953(1). See id. (stating that "[a] divorce court is required to consider the `economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective'"); Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 353 (Me. 1994) (stating that "the court must consider the factors set forth in 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-A [predecessor to 19-A M.R.S.A. § 953] . . . ."). A failure to consider all factors in distributing the marital property constitutes an abuse of discretion.

"We review the division of marital property for an abuse of discretion." Long v. Long, 1997 ME 171, ¶ 19, 697 A.2d 1317, 1324 (citing Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 353 (Me. 1994)). The District Court's division of marital property will be vacated only if there is a "violation of some positive rule of law or if the division results in a `plain and unmistakable injustice, so apparent that it is instantly visible without argument.'"