Hays v. Hays, 2017 Ark. App. 439

Melissa Hays (age 36) and Jason Hays married in 2009; no children. Melissa claimed lifelong learning/processing deficits, anxiety, and limited work history; she had no earned income during the marriage and had been denied Social Security disability.
Jason earned income (Amtrak conductor), paid mortgage contributions and other support during separation, and claimed Melissa could work in a menial position.
Parties stipulated Melissa would receive the divorce and that the house was her premarital property; Jason admitted some household damage and contributed mortgage payments.
Trial court declined to award permanent alimony, stating among other grounds a policy concern about requiring lifelong support for preexisting disabilities that predated the marriage; it awarded short-term (“bridged”) rehabilitative alimony payments totaling a limited period and adjusted property/debt division (including $9,000 in house-related benefit to Melissa and other distributions).
Melissa appealed, arguing the court improperly relied on a public-policy rationale and failed to base the decision primarily on the required alimony factors (financial need and ability to pay). Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion because the trial court considered multiple factors (including property division, Melissa’s unchanged economic position, and low likelihood of rehabilitation) in addition to its policy comment.

Issue	Hays (Appellant) Argument	Jason (Appellee) Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying permanent alimony by relying on a public‑policy concern about requiring lifelong support for preexisting disabilities	Trial court relied on broad public‑policy reasoning (deterrent to marrying disabled persons) rather than the Franklin/Taylor alimony factors; this was an improper basis to deny needed support	Trial court did not rest solely on the public‑policy remark; it considered statutory/Franklin factors, property division, Melissa’s unchanged economic status, and low rehabilitation prospects	No abuse of discretion; policy remark was not the sole basis and other relevant factors supported denial
Whether record evidence supported denial of permanent alimony given Melissa’s need and Jason’s ability to pay	Melissa needs ongoing support (no income, disabilities); Jason has contributed $1,000–$2,000 monthly and can pay $1,800 requested	Jason showed contributions and argued Melissa entered and left marriage in same financial position; court’s property distribution offset imbalance	Affirmed: court reasonably exercised discretion considering need, ability, property division, and marriage duration; relief awarded (bridged alimony) was within discretion

Franklin v. Franklin, 25 Ark. App. 287, 758 S.W.2d 7 (Ark. App. 1988) (lists factors for alimony determinations)
Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, 250 S.W.3d 232 (Ark. 2007) (alimony is discretionary; primary factors are need and ability to pay)
Smithson v. Smithson, 436 S.W.3d 491 (Ark. App. 2014) (affirming limited-term alimony where property division and other relief rectified economic imbalance)
Evtimov v. Milanova, 300 S.W.3d 110 (Ark. App. 2009) (alimony and property division are complementary; disparity in earning capacity does not automatically require long‑term alimony)
Beck v. Beck, 521 S.W.3d 543 (Ark. App. 2017) (discusses alimony standards and factors for appellate review)