Ary v. Ary
2013 Ark. App. 677
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Royce and Sonya Ary divorced after an 18-year marriage; Sonya received primary custody of two children and monthly child support; Royce retained the marital home and most marital assets, Sonya received Royce’s retirement account.
- At the divorce hearing the trial court expressly held alimony and attorney-fee issues in abeyance pending settlement or sale and invited the parties to negotiate a property settlement.
- The parties executed a property-settlement agreement allocating assets and debts but failed to agree on alimony; the court held a separate hearing limited to alimony and attorney’s-fees issues.
- Sonya testified she lacked sufficient income, had monthly expenses exceeding income, and had incurred substantial attorney’s fees; Royce testified he lacked disposable income after child support, mortgage, and debts.
- The trial court awarded Sonya rehabilitative-style alimony: $750/month for five years, then $500/month for five years, terminating on death or remarriage; it denied attorney’s fees.
- Royce appealed, arguing (1) the trial court lacked authority to award alimony after entry of the divorce decree, and (2) the alimony award/amount was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Royce) | Defendant's Argument (Sonya) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by awarding alimony after entry of the divorce decree (reservation of alimony) | Trial court lacked authority under Ark. Code § 9-12-312 and precedent to reserve alimony after decree | Implied: reservation was permissible and not objected to below; court retained jurisdiction for alimony determination | Issue not preserved on appeal; Royce failed to raise it below, so the court declined to reach the merits (appeal waived) |
| Whether awarding alimony was an abuse of discretion | Alimony was improper or excessive given debts Royce assumed, his financial strain, and alleged unequal property division; court allegedly considered fault and Sonya’s post-separation lifestyle | Sonya demonstrated financial need and limited earning capacity; Royce had ability to pay (veteran disability + federal employment); secondary factors (length of marriage, division of assets) supported an award | No abuse of discretion: trial court considered primary and secondary alimony factors and the award was reasonable under the circumstances; affirmed |
| Whether specific objections (unequal property split, fault, Sonya’s expenses, Royce’s credit-card debt) required reversal | These facts undermine alimony or show court relied on improper considerations | Court found parties agreed to property split; record does not show court penalized Royce for fault; trial court best positioned to assess needs and reasonableness | Court rejected these contentions and found the factual findings supported the alimony award; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Grady, 295 Ark. 94 (discusses timing of alimony orders at decree)
- Ford v. Ford, 272 Ark. 506 (addresses reservation of alimony and trial-court authority)
- Russell v. Russell, 2013 Ark. 372 (alimony must be reasonable under the circumstances; appellate review for abuse of discretion)