Opinion by Hollander, Judge. This appeal arises from two law suits instituted by E. Diane Turner, appellant.... One involves the dissolution of the marriage of appellant and Donald Turner, appellee. The other concerns Mr. Turner and the family business, Baltimore Stage Lighting, Inc. ("BSL" or the "Company"), appellee, a close corporation wholly owned by the Turners. In a sense, the Turners epitomize the rags to riches American dream. At the outset of their lengthy marriage, the Turners were of modest means. Then, they combined their enterprising spirit with creativity and determination to create BSL, a very profitable business. While working full-time at another job, Mr. Turner devoted his evenings to the development of a lighting business. . . By 1974, it had grown so much that appellee began to work for it on a full-time basis. The business evolved into BSL. Although Mr. Turner became the president of BSL, it is undisputed that Ms. Turner was actively involved in BSL from its inception, and worked full-time in the business for many years. While both parties devoted considerable time and effort to BSL, appellee was paid a significantly higher salary than appellant. Moreover, Mr. Turner owned 65 shares of BSL stock, while only 10 shares were titled to appellant. Ms. Turner testified that she periodically discussed with appellee her desire to hold title to an amount of BSL stock equal to his. She claimed that appellee assured her that they had an "equal" interest in BSL, and "it didn't make any difference" how the stock was titled. Ms. Turner recalled that problems in the marriage surfaced in 1995, when she noticed that Mr. Turner was coming home less frequently. By 1996, she suspected that he was involved with drugs and other women. Ms. Turner's concerns were confirmed in January 1997, when she discovered that appellee was using cocaine and had a relationship with another woman. Appellant also learned on June 9, 1997, that appellee had been removing cash from BSL. Soon afterwards, the parties separated....

Questions:

1. What are the legally significant facts?
2. Why did the lower court reduce the original support amount?
3. Why did this court impute income to the wife?
4. Identify each of the factors that the court considered in making its support award.
5. As identified by the court, what is the purpose of rehabilitative alimony?
6. What statutory factor did the court focus on in deciding to award indefinite support?
7. What factors did the court consider when discussing the gross disparity in the parties' earning capacity?
8. What role do you think considerations of fairness played in the Court's decision?