Vigneault v. Vigneault
2010 Ark. App. 716
Ark. Ct. App.2010Background
- David Vigneault and Pam Vigneault married in June 1981 and separated after 27 years.
- They lived in Greenfield, MA for most of the marriage; two sons reached adulthood during the pendency.
- They moved to Bentonville, AR in 2007; home purchased with $100,000 down from MA proceeds.
- divorce filed in AR circuit court after appellee returned to MA; AR court assumed jurisdiction in 2008.
- At trial, appellant had substantial income (base salary ~$231k, bonuses, stock) and both parties had investment/retirement assets; appellee had modest income from salon and hospital work.
- Circuit Court awarded appellee alimony of $3,787/month plus a tax payment obligation; equity and debt were divided; the court found appellee had need and appellant could pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony amount is reasonable. | Vigneault argues the amount/de facto duration are excessive. | Vigneault contends award should be lower or rehabilitative. | Alimony amount deemed reasonable; upheld. |
| Whether the alimony amount complied with the child-support chart. | Vigneault says court misapplied chart, overstate alimony. | Vigneault argues chart should guide; appellee’s need supported by evidence. | Court’s use of chart not binding; flexible award allowed; not reversible error. |
| Whether appellee's earning capacity was properly imputed. | Vigneault contends higher imputed income for appellee. | appellee’s actual earnings and potential considered; tax/insurance considerations addressed. | Imputation of income within discretion; not abusive. |
| Whether marital debt and adult children’s college support were adequately considered. | Vigneault argues his obligations for debt and college should reduce alimony. | College support voluntary; adult children no longer depend; debts allocated. | No abuse; finding consistent with case law; no credit for college expenses beyond voluntary support. |
| Whether rehabilitative alimony should have been awarded instead of permanent. | Court erred by not issuing rehabilitative alimony. | Parties are in mid-fifties; long marriage; rehabilitative not warranted given earning potential. | No abuse; permanent alimony appropriate; modification possible on change of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Cole, 89 Ark.App. 134 (Ark. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for alimony)
- Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 2009 Ark. App. 685 (Ark. App. 2009) (factors for alimony; no rigid formula)
- Rudder v. Hurst, 2009 Ark. App. 577 (Ark. App. 2009) (consideration of earning capacity and marriage duration)
- Matthews v. Matthews, 2009 Ark. App. 400 (Ark. App. 2009) (purpose of alimony; economic imbalances)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 2009 Ark. App. 238 (Ark. App. 2009) (court need not reference child-support chart absent child support)
- Whitworth v. Whitworth, 2009 Ark. App. 410 (Ark. App. 2009) (credit for college expense not mandatory; discretion retained)
- Bagley v. Williamson, 101 Ark.App. 1 (Ark. App. 2007) (parental duty ends at 18 or high school graduation; voluntary support factors)
- Page v. Page, 2010 Ark. App. 188 (Ark. App. 2010) (rehabilitative alimony concept and its limited duration)
- Pearce v. Pearce, 2010 Ark. App. 532 (Ark. App. 2010) (fact-specific alimony analysis; deference to trial court)