Jones v. Jones
447 S.W.3d 599
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bert and Sonja Jones were divorced by decree entered July 2, 2013; Bert did not attend the initial hearing.
- Temporary child support was set, and a later hearing (July 3, 2013) determined final child support and alimony after discovery of Bert’s income.
- The court found Bert’s monthly net income $5,461 and Sonja’s monthly net income $1,690 (working at $13/hour); Sonja’s monthly expenses were $3,388.
- Child support for two children was set at $1,080/month, with scheduled reductions as each child reached majority; the court accounted for future decreases in child support when setting alimony.
- The court ordered Bert to pay alimony of $618/month initially, increasing to $910.19 when older child’s support reduced, and to $1,698 when child support terminated, payable until Sonja remarries, dies, or modification.
- Bert appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly provided for automatic proportional increases in alimony as child support abated, and (2) the award was punitive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bert) | Defendant's Argument (Sonja) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony may automatically increase as child support abates | Automatic, proportional increases wrongly circumvent requirement to show changed circumstances and file a modification motion | The court may account for foreseeable reductions in child support when setting alimony because Sonja will need additional resources as child support declines | Affirmed — court did not err; it reasonably considered child-support reductions when structuring staged alimony increases |
| Whether the alimony award was punitive | Alimony lacked non-punitive rationale and record of domestic violence implies punishment | Award based on Sonja’s need and Bert’s ability to pay; many alimony factors favor Sonja | Affirmed — no indication award was punitive; court acted within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Smithson v. Smithson, 436 S.W.3d 491 (Ark. App. 2014) (trial court best positioned to assess alimony needs)
- Bracken v. Bracken, 787 S.W.2d 678 (Ark. 1990) (primary factors: need of one spouse and ability of the other to pay)
- Harvey v. Harvey, 747 S.W.2d 89 (Ark. 1988) (purpose of alimony to rectify economic imbalance)
- Boyles v. Boyles, 594 S.W.2d 17 (Ark. 1980) (list of factors to consider in alimony awards)
- Weeks v. Wilson, 234 S.W.3d 333 (Ark. App. 2006) (burden on party seeking modification to show changed circumstances)