Nelson v. Nelson
2016 Ark. App. 416
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Parties divorced after a 30-year marriage; Janice (wife) earned about $18,000/year and worked as a city secretary/beautician; Michael (husband) historically earned ~ $250,000/year as a computer consultant.
- Janice filed for divorce alleging adultery and sought $4,500/month alimony; Michael admitted an affair and significant spending on his girlfriend (~$45,000) and had unpaid income taxes.
- At trial the court found a large disparity in earning capacity, awarded Janice the marital residence (assumed $37,000 mortgage; ~$73,000 equity), gave Michael his mother’s residence (equity ~$59,000), and allocated other assets and accounts between the parties.
- The court awarded Janice $2,500/month lifetime alimony (modifiable) and $1,500 in attorney’s fees; Michael was ordered responsible for his unpaid taxes.
- Michael appealed, arguing the alimony award (duration and amount) and the unequal distribution of marital property and debt were erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Janice) | Defendant's Argument (Nelson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "lifetime" (permanent) alimony is permissible | Lifetime alimony is appropriate given income disparity and length of marriage | "Permanent" alimony is improper post-Amendment 80; alimony must be modifiable and not unlimited | Court upheld lifetime alimony as acceptable nomenclature where award is modifiable and not error |
| Whether alimony amount ($2,500/mo) was appropriate | Amount reasonable considering need, past standard of living, assets, and earning disparity | Amount excessive; court should use stricter formula or reduce award | Court affirmed amount as within discretion after considering statutory factors |
| Whether unequal division of marital property was improper | Unequal division justified by spouse’s spending on girlfriend, income disparity, homemaker contribution | Unequal division unsupported or inadequately explained | Court affirmed unequal division — trial court gave adequate reasons and considered statutory factors |
| Whether allocation of marital debt (taxes) was improper | Michael should bear his unpaid tax liabilities given income and ability to pay | Janice should share debt or allocation was unfair | Court affirmed allocation to Michael; trial court’s factual debt allocation not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Vigneault v. Vigneault, 379 S.W.3d 566 (Ark. App. 2010) (approving lifetime alimony when modifiable and supported by circumstances)
- Kuchmas v. Kuchmas, 243 S.W.3d 270 (Ark. 2006) (alimony should not be reduced to a strict mathematical formula)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 453 S.W.3d 655 (Ark. 2014) (appellate standard for reviewing division of marital property)
- Smithson v. Smithson, 436 S.W.3d 491 (Ark. App. 2014) (trial court best positioned to assess alimony; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Boxley v. Boxley, 73 S.W.3d 19 (Ark. App. 2002) (purpose of property-division statute is fair and equitable allocation)