Case Title: Mulling v. Mulling

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Kevin R. MULLING v. Teresa W. MULLING

95-333                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 16, 1996


1.   Divorce -- alimony -- chancellor can make award of alimony
     that is reasonable under circumstances. -- The chancellor can
     make an award of alimony that is reasonable under the
     circumstances.

2.   Divorce -- alimony -- purpose of -- primary factors. -- The
     purpose of alimony is to rectify economic imbalance in earning
     power and standard of living in light of the particular facts
     in each case; the primary factors to be considered in making
     an award of alimony are the need of one spouse and the other
     spouse's ability to pay.

3.   Divorce -- alimony -- chancellor did not abuse discretion in
     reserving award of alimony. -- Where the parties had been
     married for thirteen years and had three children; appellee
     had obtained a marketing degree but never worked after her
     marriage; appellee, after filing for divorce, was employed as
     a substitute teacher in elementary school and worked as a real
     estate agent; appellee, according to her testimony, earned
     $85.00 per month during the pendency of the divorce, while her
     monthly expenses amounted to $2,038.99; appellant was an
     engineer and had previously worked in that capacity;
     appellant, at the time the divorce action commenced, earned a
     base salary of $65,000.00 a year and an additional yearly
     amount of $10,000.00 in overtime but, at the time the parties'
     divorce was granted, was receiving unemployment pay in the
     amount of $256.00 per week and a monthly pension in the sum of
     $306.01, with monthly living expenses at about $735.00;
     appellant testified that he could not presently get a job in
     his industry but expected that he could find employment paying
     around $35,000.00 to $40,000.00 per year; the supreme court
     could not say that the chancellor abused his discretion in
     reserving an award of alimony, at least for a period necessary
     for appellee to re-enter gainful employment.

4.   Divorce -- alimony -- where spouse is unable to pay at time
     decree is entered, court may decline to award specific amount
     until such time as changed circumstances permit payment of
     alimony. -- Where either spouse is entitled to alimony, but
     circumstances prevent the spouse who is to pay from being able
     to do so, the chancellor may recite that fact and decline to
     award a specific amount until circumstances change in a way
     that will permit the payment of alimony, and the party who has
     been determined to be entitled to it petitions the court.

5.   Divorce -- alimony -- decree modified to reflect that
     appellant's unemployment prevented him from paying alimony at
     time of entry of decree. -- The supreme court affirmed the
     chancellor's intention to reserve the possible fixing of a
     specific and reasonable amount of alimony at a future time
     when the circumstances would permit it; the court, however, 
     modified the chancellor's divorce decree to reflect that
     appellant's unemployment prevented him from paying alimony at
     the time of entry of the decree, although his earning capacity
     would otherwise warrant such an award; the appellate court
     directed that the decree should be amended to reserve to
     appellee the right to petition the trial court to establish an
     alimony amount if circumstances change.

6.   Divorce -- alimony -- conflicting case law overruled. -- The
     supreme court overruled Ford v. Ford, 272 Ark. 506,