Stansberry v. Stansberry, see note 13, supra; Durland v. Durland, see note 8, supra;Jupe v. Jupe, 1947 OK ___, 175 P.2d 976, 978.Ford v. Ford, 1988 OK 103, ¶ 11, 766 P.2d 950, 953; Dowdell v. Dowdell, 1969 OK 155, ¶ 9, 463 P.2d 948, 950; Eiseneich v.Eisenreich, 1958 OK 61, ¶ 10, 323 P.2d 723, 724.Ford v. Ford, see note 15, supra;Dowdell v. Dowdell, see note 15, supra.

A provision terminating alimony on a contingent occurrence (such as remarriage or death prior to full payment) would render the award void. Vanderslice v. Vanderslice, 195 Okla. 496, 159 P.2d 560 (1945); Bishop v. Bishop, 194 Okla. 209, 148 P.2d 472 (1944); Cf. Dowdell v. Dowdell, 463 P.2d 948 (Okla. 1970). The above-quoted Oklahoma statute was clearly applicable at the time petitioner was granted a divorce from his wife.

A statutory exception to this general rule under 12 O.S. 1981 § 1276[12-1276] has been noted in divorce cases, Durland v. Durland, 552 P.2d 1148, 1149 (Okla. 1976) and Dowdell v. Dowdell, 463 P.2d 948, 953 (Okla. 1970). Sunrizon, however, has not cited any authority to support an award for the expense of copying briefs as costs in a case such as the one herein.

Tr. at 53. In light of the wife's monthly expenses and accustomed mode of living the award cannot be construed as an abuse of discretion. See, Eisenreich v. Eisenreich, 323 P.2d 723 (Okla. 1958), (a wife's condition and means may be considered in determining the amount of alimony); and Dowdell v. Dowdell, 463 P.2d 948 (Okla. 1969), (the court may consider the wife's mode of living to which she has become accustomed in determining the amount of alimony). The wife received the benefit of an education while married, but has not been employed, except for a short period, since the beginning of the marriage.

Potter v. Wilson, Okla., 609 P.2d 1278, 1281 [1980]; see Marks-Barnett, Renovations and Innovations: Commentary on Recent Developments in Family Law, 50 OBJ 1276-1278, 2758-2761.Dowdell v. Dowdell, Okla., 463 P.2d 948, 953 [1970]; Scott v. Scott, 203 Okla. 60, 218 P.2d 373, 376 [1950]. Both the trial and appellate courts may make provisions for payment of support, alimony and counsel fees during an interspousal appellate contest.

Under the circumstances pointed to by the Court of Appeals of the rather lengthy period of time of this appeal and of substantial amount of money paid by the husband in compliance with the judgment of the trial court and subsequent orders, we find credit should be allowed of amounts so paid since the entering by the trial court of its judgment. Dowdell v. Dowdell, Okla., 463 P.2d 948, 953 (1969). COURT OF APPEALS DECISION VACATED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED AND REMANDED, IF NECESSARY, TO DETERMINE CREDITS TO JUDGMENT FOR AMOUNT PAID PENDING APPEAL.

She was out of employment; her certificate for teaching had expired; she had not used her stenographic employment for some 22 years. It appears that the present case is more in point with the case of Dowdell v. Dowdell, Okla., 463 P.2d 948, in which the wife worked while the husband was obtaining his degree in college. She continued to work periodically until shortly before the trial; she helped with the support of the household, including placing her inheritance to help on the family budget.

The appeal from the divorce decree of necessity required legal research and the preparation of a brief for presentation. The appellant is granted an additional $500.00 for attorney fees and costs.Dowdell v. Dowdell, 463 P.2d 948, 953 (Okla. 1970); Lavender v. Lavender, 435 P.2d 583 (Okla. 1967); 12 O.S. 1971 § 1276[12-1276]. CERTIORARI GRANTED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INCREASING AMOUNT OF ALIMONY JUDGMENT AND AWARDING ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY FEES FOR PROSECUTION OF APPEAL. JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OTHERWISE AFFIRMED.

Appellant also argues that $40.00 per month per child for a total of $160.00 per month is inadequate support and that the trial court erred in failing to award alimony to her. In Dowdell v. Dowdell, 463 P.2d 948 (Okla. 1970) cited by appellant for the proposition that alimony should have been awarded, the wife was granted the divorce against her husband, a physician, because of his association with another woman. The wife had worked to support the family while her husband was in medical school.

" In Harden, supra, referring to the husband, we observed in making the determination of alimony and property division, "His property is of great value as heretofore stated, and his assets are quite liquid." An added consideration is the parties' station in life, Dowdell v. Dowdell, Okla., 463 P.2d 948, 952, and the husband's estate and earning capacity, Seelig v. Seelig, Okla., 460 P.2d 433, 436. Under the record before us the size of the husband's separate estate has an interesting relation to his earning capacity.