458 S.W.3d 743
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Robert Hix (OB-GYN) and Michelle Hix divorced in 2001; two minor children; Michelle awarded primary custody.
- Divorce decree set child support (above guideline) and alimony of $1,500/month, noting the parties’ understanding that Michelle would be a stay-at-home mother.
- In 2013 Michelle sought increased child support; Robert counter-petitioned to terminate alimony, citing changed circumstances (children older; Michelle could work).
- At the 2014 hearing Robert’s net income had risen substantially; he remarried; combined family income exceeded $1,000,000/year.
- Michelle worked part-time as an independent contractor social worker, averaging limited billable hours to preserve flexibility for transporting and supporting the children.
- Trial court increased child support and modified (phased out) alimony: reduced by 20% at eldest child’s graduation and by $300/year thereafter until termination; Robert appealed only the alimony decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hix) | Defendant's Argument (Michelle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by considering evidence that parties intended Michelle to be a stay-at-home mother | That the decree’s reference to their marital plan was only in the child-support discussion and was not a proper factor for alimony modification | The parties’ pre-divorce circumstances (including agreement Michelle would stay home) are relevant to whether a material change occurred since the decree | Court: Admitting and considering that evidence was proper to establish the benchmark at the time of the original award; stay-at-home status is a permissible factor |
| Whether continued alimony was based on need or mere want | Michelle is capable of full-time work (MSW) and chooses part-time; children are older so she can work more; thus no need for continued alimony | Michelle needs alimony to maintain flexible schedule to transport/attend children’s activities, build practice later, and her earning capacity is substantially lower than Robert’s | Court: No abuse of discretion. Alimony need existed; phased reduction tied to children’s graduation was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Herman v. Herman, 335 Ark. 36, 977 S.W.2d 209 (1998) (standards and discretion for alimony awards and modifications)
- Johnson v. Cotton-Johnson, 88 Ark. App. 67, 194 S.W.3d 806 (2004) (secondary factors for alimony include earning ability and resources)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, 250 S.W.3d 232 (2007) (parties’ arrangement for spouse to stay home may factor into alimony)
- Boyles v. Boyles, 268 Ark. 120, 594 S.W.2d 17 (1980) (alimony determined by particular facts; factors list is not exclusive)
- Delacey v. Delacey, 85 Ark. App. 419, 155 S.W.3d 701 (2004) (recipient’s part-time work to care for children does not preclude alimony)
- Matthews v. Matthews, 322 S.W.3d 15 (Ark. App. 2009) (upholding award exceeding listed expenses where future needs likely)
- Vigneault v. Vigneault, 379 S.W.3d 566 (Ark. App. 2010) (modest excess of alimony over stated expenses not necessarily excessive)