Trucks v. Trucks, 459 S.W.3d 312

Appellant Michael Trucks appeals a June 10, 2014 divorce decree, including a $600 monthly alimony for 30 years.
Marriage lasted nearly sixteen years; appellant had long periods away due to drug/alcohol addiction.
Contested financial issue: alleged $100,000 promissory note to appellee Laureen Trucks’ mother, with no supporting testimony or statements.
Note was incomplete: no amount due, no maturity date, appellant disputed signature and existence, and appellee’s mother witness was absent.
Circuit court found fault-based grounds (habitual drunkenness, drug abuse, adultery) and awarded alimony based on need and payor’s ability.
Appellate standard: reviews alimony de novo on the record; court enjoys wide discretion; no automatic mathematical formula.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was alimony award supported by needs and ability to pay?	Trucks argues lack of clear evidence of appellee's need and his ability to pay.	Trucks contends the circuit court abused discretion despite conflicting evidence on need and payor's finances.	No abuse; court properly balanced needs and ability to pay.
Did court improperly factor marital misconduct into alimony?	Fault should not drive alimony; evidence insufficient to justify punitive intent.	Misconduct may be considered if related to need or ability to pay.	Conduct not used punitively; can be considered where relevant to finances.
Was thirty-year duration for alimony appropriate given mortgage term?	Thirty-year period overstates duration related to a 23-year remaining mortgage.	Court noted indebtedness duration; could modify if circumstances change.	Not an abuse; duration within trial court's discretion with potential future modification.
Did the court err by relying on inconsistent pleadings/testimony and disputed documents?	Inconsistencies show lack of credible support for awards.	Credibility and weight of testimony fall within circuit court's credence.	No reversible error; credibility determinations belong to trial court.

Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, 250 S.W.3d 232 (2007) (alimony review is de novo on the record)
Wadley v. Wadley, 395 S.W.3d 411 (Ark. App. 2012) (trial court has broad discretion on alimony)
Boyles v. Boyles, 594 S.W.2d 17 (Ark. 1980) (twelve enumerated factors for alimony)
Jones v. Jones, 447 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. App. 2014) (enumerated factors may be considered in alimony)
Brave v. Brave, 433 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2014) (alimony is a matter of sound discretion under circumstances)
Dykman v. Dykman, 253 S.W.3d 23 (Ark. App. 2007) (fault or marital misconduct may be considered if related to need or ability to pay)
Whitworth v. Whitworth, 319 S.W.3d 269 (Ark. App. 2009) (credibility of witnesses is within circuit court's province)