Dace v. Doss
2017 Ark. App. 531
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Harold Dace and Debra (Dace) Doss divorced in 2012 after 17 years; the judgment ordered Dace to pay permanent alimony of $619/month to Doss for her life.
- Doss remarried on November 7, 2015; Dace stopped paying alimony unilaterally and Doss filed a contempt motion in April 2016.
- Dace moved to terminate alimony based on Doss’s remarriage and alleged lack of need; a hearing followed.
- The circuit court imputed monthly income of $1,075 to Doss, found her reasonable monthly expenses were $1,309, and found she still had a $234 monthly need despite remarriage.
- The court reduced alimony to $234/month (effective May 31, 2016), awarded $5,269 in arrears, and ordered ongoing payments; Dace appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dace) | Defendant's Argument (Doss) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony automatically terminates on payee’s remarriage | Alimony should have terminated by statute upon Doss’s remarriage; no continued obligation | Court may continue alimony despite remarriage when ordered otherwise and need persists | Court affirmed: statute allows continuation “unless otherwise ordered”; trial court expressly ordered continued reduced alimony |
| Whether Doss lacked need after remarriage | Rent/utilities paid by husband eliminated need; savings exceeded prior alimony | Doss still had other expenses and lacked sufficient income; husband’s support did not eliminate need | Court affirmed trial-court finding of continued need and reduced but not terminated alimony ($234) |
| Whether trial court impermissibly used a mathematical formula to set modified alimony | Trial court improperly subtracted imputed income from expenses to reach alimony (contrary to Brave) | Trial court properly evaluated income, expenses, earning capacity and ability to pay; numerical analysis is inevitable | Court held no abuse: use of numbers to evaluate need/capacity is permissible and not a rigid formula |
| Whether trial court relied on matters outside the record | Court solicited outside evidence (tax preparer, affidavits) and considered it | Doss provided requested affidavits and information; no timely objection below | Issue not preserved; court did not err in considering information after no objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Nelson, 2016 Ark. App. 416 (standard of review for domestic-relations appeals)
- Beck v. Beck, 2017 Ark. App. 311 (discretionary nature of alimony awards)
- Bennett v. Bennett, 2016 Ark. App. 308 (abuse-of-discretion explained)
- Brave v. Brave, 2014 Ark. 175 (alimony should not be reduced to a rigid mathematical formula)
- Berry v. Berry, 2017 Ark. App. 145 (burden to show significant change for modification)
- Valetutti v. Valetutti, 95 Ark. App. 83 (supporting authority that reduced alimony may be appropriate when need/ability considered)
- Artman v. Hoy, 370 Ark. 131 (statutory construction: plain language governs)
- Foster v. Foster, 2016 Ark. 456 (permanent alimony authorized under §9-12-312(a))
- Mason v. Mason, 2017 Ark. 225 (Act 1487 does not retroactively terminate pre-2013 alimony awards)