Court Opinion

ID: 9950060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 14:02:28.24068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:15.476687
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 194
                     ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION IV
                                        No. CV-23-94

                                                 Opinion Delivered March 13, 2024

                                           APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
 JODIE HARTMAN
                                           COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
                                 APPELLANT
                                           SEVENTEENTH DIVISION
                                           [NO. 60DR-19-1563]
 V.
                                                 HONORABLE MACKIE M. PIERCE,
 CANDIE HARTMAN                                  JUDGE
                                   APPELLEE
                                                 AFFIRMED

                               CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge

       Candie and Jodie Hartman were divorced by decree entered October 26, 2022, after

a sixteen-year marriage. Jodie appeals from the divorce decree, arguing that the Pulaski

County Circuit Court abused its discretion (1) in its calculation of child support; (2) in its

award of alimony; and (3) in its division of marital debt. We affirm.

       Jodie and Candie were married on October 21, 2006. At the time Candie filed for

divorce in April 2019, they had three minor children, MC1, MC2, and MC3. 1 In her

complaint, Candie requested, in part, custody of the children, alimony, child support, and

the division of marital property and debt. Jodie answered and counterclaimed, also seeking

       1
           By the time they divorced, MC1 had reached the age of eighteen.
to have the marriage dissolved. During the course of the proceedings, the court appointed

an attorney ad litem to represent the children’s interests.

       A final hearing on the divorce began on March 10, 2022. At the hearing, Candie

testified that she lived with her three children (one who is now an adult) in a mobile home

purchased by her brother on her dad’s property and had done so for approximately thirteen

months.

       As for income, she stated that Jodie was an assistant battalion chief at the Sherwood

Fire Department and that his usual shift is twenty-four hours on, forty-eight hours off. She

said that, throughout their marriage, Jodie earned extra income from a body-shop business

where he repaired and painted damaged vehicles and from a lawn company. She testified

that, while the body shop-work had admittedly dwindled, Jodie still worked on cars and

collected money for his work. She stated that he had worked on a car just prior to her filing

for divorce and that he worked on a couple of cars each month even in his slow times. As

for the lawn company, she stated that she was certain that he continued to mow lawns since

their separation earning $480 a month in her estimation. Her sister-in-law, Megan Fortson,

confirmed that Jodie performed body work and mowed lawns for money.

       Candie also testified that they had several rental properties that produced income.

One was rented for $650 a month; one was rented for $675 a month; and one was rented

for $25 a month. She claimed that, during their separation, Jodie collected rent on those

properties but did not divide the income with her. She testified that Jodie even admitted in

discovery that he collected $1400 in rent each month. So, for approximately thirty-nine

                                               2
months, she had not received any rental income from those properties.2 She admitted,

however, that she had not paid any of the expenses for those properties during that time

period. She asked that she be reimbursed for her portion of the past rental payments.

       As for her income, Candie testified that she is currently on disability due to her

rheumatoid arthritis and accompanying neuropathy. She is on eight or nine different

medications and requires three-hour infusions every eight weeks. She stated that she has

been unable to work since 2010 and receives $949 a month ($1147.10 before deductions) in

disability payments. Her only other source of income is child support.

       She testified that due to her limited income, she is unable to afford everything and

has to rely on her brother for financial assistance.3 She also claimed that she had been forced

to rely on her credit cards to make ends meet.4 Credit cards in her name totaled $33,397.93,

and the minimum monthly payments were $929.14. Jodie, on the other hand, had only

$1100.20 in credit-card debt in his name. She also testified to a joint Dillard’s credit-card

debt of $7499.40. This brought their total marital credit-card debt to $41,997.53. She asked

that the court order Jodie to pay the entire amount of marital debt because she could not

afford to. She also asked for spousal support.

       2
        According to Candie’s testimony, Jodie collected $52,650 in rental income during
their separation. Jodie stated in his discovery responses that he collected $54,600.
       3
        She testified that she intended to sell the rental properties she received in the divorce
in order to pay her brother back.
       4
       She testified that she incurred charges on her credit cards for food, gas, electricity,
Christmas gifts for the children, children’s clothing, and items to set up her household.

                                                 3
       As for insurance, she testified that the children are covered by ARKids First for their

medical and dental insurance. She stated that Jodie had also purchased an AFLAC

supplemental insurance policy and an additional dental policy. She stated that he had not

provided her with any insurance cards on those policies.

       As for Jodie’s retirement, she testified that he has a LOPFI pension but that she had

not received any documentation from Jodie as to the value of that account. She also testified

that he had been contributing to a 457(b) account worth $15,472.65. She requested that the

court award her half of the marital portion of those retirement accounts, if not more.

       As for the child-support payments, Candie testified that Jodie insisted on personally

hand delivering the support checks to her and required that she sign the backs of the checks

in his presence. He would then take a picture of them after she had signed. She testified that,

on one occasion, he flicked the check at her from the window of his car, it caught the wind,

and blew underneath the car. When she went to retrieve it, he placed the car in reverse and

started moving. If she had not moved her arm quickly enough, he would have run over her

arm. As a result, she asked that his child-support payments be withheld from his paycheck.

       On cross-examination, she admitted that she and the children continued to live in

the marital home with Jodie until February 2021. She stated that during that time, she paid

for household goods, food, life-insurance policies on the children, and the internet bill. She

also admitted that they had been able to pay off their credit-card debt in 2012 after she

received her disability settlement, but it was never completely paid off after that.

                                               4
       She also testified that after she left the home, Jodie moved his girlfriend and her son

into his house. She stated that she was not opposed to the girlfriend living there because she

acts as a buffer between Jodie and the children, but it did make her angry that he was

supporting them while not providing her with any financial support other than the court-

ordered child support.

        Candie’s brother, Christopher Fortson, testified that he had financially assisted his

sister since her separation from Jodie by buying her a home and paying the mortgage and

some of her bills. He stated that he would be unable to do that for the rest of her life. He

stated that because his partner is unemployed due to COVID-19 and he has been helping

his sister out financially, he had been placed in a financial bind and had had to incur credit-

card debt for the first time in a long time.

       The matter was continued until April 15, 2022. Jodie testified that since September

2021, he has lived in his separate residence with his girlfriend and her fifteen-year-old son.

He stated that his girlfriend moved in because her rental house was being sold, and she had

no place to stay. He testified that, although his girlfriend has a job, she does not pay any rent

or utilities because he believes it is not her place to do so. He claimed that their living with

him does not add to his expenses. He also testified that he had begun renovating his house

during this time period.

       As for income, he testified that he is employed as a battalion chief for the Sherwood

Fire Department and had been with the fire department for twenty-four years. He stated that

he is on salary as a fireman and may earn some overtime but that the overtime is not

                                               5
guaranteed. He testified that the rental properties they owned bring in $1400 a month. He

stated that he had mowed lawns for thirty years but claimed that he no longer mows lawns

or repairs vehicles for money. He further testified that his LOPFI has no cash value because

it is a pension plan and is based on his years of service at retirement. He contributes $100 a

pay period to his 457(b) plan and had purchased supplemental health and dental insurance

for the children.5

       As for spousal support, he testified that he does not believe Candie is entitled to

alimony because she has other means of financial support. He asserted that she lives beyond

her means and has an unhealthy spending habit, although he could not identify which

purchases were extravagant. He acknowledged that Candie cannot survive on her disability

alone but insisted that the fact that her credit card minimum payments exceed her disability

payments is proof that she is living beyond her means. He also claimed that he had already

had to pay off $70,000 to $80,000 of her credit-card debt on three previous occasions during

their marriage. He also took issue with the fact that Candie was allowing their adult son to

live with her rent-free while he is in school. He asked that the court deny Candie’s request

for spousal support, claiming that he does not have the ability to pay it.

       As for her child-support request, he asserted that he paid all the household bills while

Candie and the boys lived with him. He later admitted that Candie had bought some of the

groceries during that time but claimed that he paid the majority of the bills, including all the

       5
           He testified that this AFLAC policy is basically a major accident/illness policy.

                                                 6
utilities and expenses on the rental properties. As for her testimony regarding his hand

delivery of the child-support payments, he maintained that he filmed Candie receiving the

checks only because he was concerned she would deny having received them. He also denied

almost running over her with his car.

          After considering the testimony and evidence presented, the circuit court granted

Candie’s request for a divorce and awarded her primary custody subject to Jodie’s visitation.

The court reserved a ruling on the issue of child support, alimony, the division of marital

debt, and other matters, and the parties were invited to present posttrial briefs on those

issues.

          On May 2, 2022, Candie submitted her posttrial brief in which she submitted three

separate options as to how the court could calculate child support and argued that the court

should consider both rental income and Jodie’s supplemental income in determining its

award. She also submitted multiple options in determining the amount of alimony to be

awarded, taking into consideration the amount of child support awarded. Finally, Candie

argued that the court should order an unequal division of the marital property and debt to

obtain an equitable result. In doing so, she requested that the court order Jodie to pay all

the marital debt.

          Jodie filed his posttrial brief the same day. 6 In his posttrial brief, Jodie argued that

each party should be responsible for any and all debt accrued in his and her individual

          6
              He filed an amended posttrial brief the next day.

                                                   7
names. He further argued that Candie is not entitled to an award of alimony. He asserted

that (1) he does not have the ability to pay; (2) Candie will continue to receive her disability

payments and had retained income-producing properties earning $800 a month gross

pursuant to an agreed division of their rental properties; (3) it is unlikely his employment

income will increase; (4) Candie will receive child-support income; (5) Candie’s standard of

living is not substantially different from her standard of living during the marriage or from

Jodie’s standard of living; and (6) Jodie will be individually liable for the mortgage debt

associated with the marital residence.7 Jodie’s posttrial brief was silent regarding how child

support should be calculated.

       On August 23, 2022, the court issued a letter opinion outlining, among other things,

its decision regarding child support, alimony, and the division of marital debt. When

calculating Jodie’s monthly gross income for child support, the court included not only

Jodie’s salary as a fireman but also $675 in rental income and $550 in imputed income for

lawn mowing, auto repair, and miscellaneous work. The rental income included in the

calculation made no allowance for insurance or other expenses related to the rental property.

On the basis of the court’s income calculations, the court determined Jodie’s child-support

obligation for the two minor children to be $1109 a month.

       As for alimony, the court noted that the primary consideration in the award of

alimony is the need of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay. The court found

       7
           It was undisputed that the marital home was Jodie’s separate property.

                                                8
that Candie clearly has a need and Jodie clearly has the ability to pay. The court also stated

that in making an award of permanent alimony, it had considered and adopted the factors

Candie set forth in her posttrial.8 It then stated that factor number ten was most compelling

and “offensive” of all the factors listed. The court noted that Jodie had moved his girlfriend

and her son into the marital home and allowed them to reside with him rent-free, while

Candie was forced to move into a home purchased by her brother on her parents’ property.

More specifically, the court found that, while Jodie did not require his girlfriend to

contribute financially to the household expenses, Candie has had to rely on financial

assistance from her brother and on the use of credit cards to live and provide for her children.

       As to the marital debt, the court stated that deciding the case had been extremely

difficult due to the various financial circumstances and issues before it. The court again

       8
         Candie asserted that permanent alimony was appropriate for the following reasons:
(1) the parties’ marriage was of long duration; (2) she is permanently, physically disabled; (3)
Jodie is in good physical health and has no employment limitations; (4) Jodie is gainfully
employed and will likely continue to earn substantially more income as he advances in his
career, and he has a documented history of earning substantial supplemental income from
multiple sources, including a lawn-care business, auto-body-repair service, rental properties,
and selling personal items; (5) she will never have any employment income due to her
permanent physical disability; (6) she will receive child support from Jodie for a maximum
of only four years because the parties’ youngest son will reach the age of majority and
graduate high school; (7) Jodie’s standard of living (as compared to their standard of living
during the marriage) has not been impacted (and, arguably, has improved) since Candie
moved out of the marital residence in February 2021; (8) she has incurred excessive credit-
card debt and had to rely on the assistance of her brother in order to financially survive on
her disability income; (9) she will likely continue to incur substantial medical expenses; and
(10) Jodie will continue to reside with his girlfriend and her son, whom he permits to reside
at the marital residence rent-free and without any financial contribution to any household
expenses.

                                               9
emphasized that Jodie had not been concerned with the dire financial situation Candie had

faced since the divorce action was initiated, and such lack of concern was evidenced by the

fact that (1) Jodie moved his girlfriend and her child into a home that he will receive free

and clear of any claim by Candie; (2) he did so without requiring any financial assistance

from his girlfriend; and (3) he claimed that it was his responsibility to provide for his

girlfriend over his obligations to support his wife and family. The court then split the marital

debt according to their percentage of total income. In doing so, the court noted that Jodie is

able to earn more each month from various endeavors, but during the divorce and separation

period had claimed to have earned little to no additional income from sources other than

his primary employment. The court found Jodie’s credibility lacking on this issue; stated it

did not believe Jodie earns no additional income other than his pay as a fireman; and found

that Jodie can, and most assuredly will, earn additional income as he has done throughout

the marriage.

       After setting forth the basis for its decision on the remaining issues, the court directed

Candie’s counsel to prepare a precedent in accordance with its letter ruling. Notably, the

parties were advised to alert the court if there were any additional issues the court

overlooked. Any objections were first to be directed to Candie’s counsel, and if the

objections could not be resolved, the parties were directed to schedule a Zoom hearing to

discuss the objections.

       On October 11, 2022, pursuant to the court’s letter opinion, Candie’s counsel filed

a proposed divorce decree. Attached to the proposed decree was a child-support worksheet

                                              10
showing how the parties’ gross income was determined and calculating their respective child-

support obligations. A line on the attached child-support worksheet, which specifically

indicated that spousal support was a permissible deduction from the monthly income

calculation, was left blank.

       On October 24, 2022, Jodie filed his objections to the proposed decree. Relevant to

this appeal, he objected to the specific amount of rental income used in determining child

support and to the date he began paying child support. He made no further objections to

the proposed divorce decree pertinent to this appeal.

       The final divorce decree was entered on October 26, 2022. In the order, the court

made several of the changes noted in Jodie’s objections. 9 The order awarded Candie child

support in the amount of $1109 a month and alimony in the amount of $1750 a month. As

for the division of marital debts, the court found that the marital debt totaled $41,997.53 of

which $40,897.42 was incurred by Candie. The court ordered Jodie to pay $29,562.20 of

Candie’s credit-card debt in addition to any individually held debt on his credit cards.

Candie was ordered to pay the remainder, including the $7499.40 in debt incurred on the

jointly held Dillard’s card.

       Jodie filed a timely notice of appeal from the court’s decree. On appeal, he argues

that the circuit court abused its discretion (1) in its calculation of child support; (2) in its

       9
         This included the removal of a paragraph related to a prohibition on overnight
guests; the transfer of title to MC2’s vehicle upon payment of loan; and the closing of the
Arvest Bank account to remove Jodie’s name from the account.

                                              11
award of alimony; and (3) in its division of marital debt. Each of these issues will be addressed

in turn.

                                        I. Child Support

       Jodie first challenges the circuit court’s award of child support, asserting the circuit

court (1) failed to consider the award of spousal support in its gross-income calculations; (2)

failed to consider “ordinary and necessary expenses” in its inclusion of rental income in the

gross-income calculations; (3) improperly imputed additional income in the gross-income

calculation when he is neither unemployed nor underemployed; (4) failed to factor the cost

of supplemental insurance into its child-support calculations; and (5) issued an improper

advisory opinion concerning the treatment of any future payments made outside the

clearinghouse.

       Our standard of review for an appeal from a child-support order is de novo on the

record, and we will not reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court unless it is clearly

erroneous. Cathey v. Altazan, 2023 Ark. App. 314, at 5, 669 S.W.3d 614, 617. However, a

circuit court’s conclusions of law are given no deference on appeal. Id. at 6, 669 S.W.3d at

618. In reviewing a circuit court’s findings, we give due deference to that court’s superior

position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their

testimony. Id. at 5–6, 669 S.W.3d at 617–18. In a child-support determination, the amount

of child support lies within the sound discretion of the circuit court, and the court’s findings

will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Id., 669 S.W.3d at 618. An abuse of

discretion generally occurs when the circuit court’s discretion is applied thoughtlessly,

                                               12
without due consideration, or improvidently. Grynwald v. Grynwald, 2022 Ark. App. 310, at

3, 651 S.W.3d 177, 180.

                            A. Consideration of Spousal Support

       Jodie first argues that the circuit court erred in failing to take into consideration the

award of spousal support in its calculation of child support. Under revised Administrative

Order No. 10, if a parent is paying spousal support and child support to the same person,

then the amount of alimony a payee spouse receives shall be reduced from the payor’s gross

income and added to the payee’s gross income for purposes of determining income under

the child-support calculation. He argues that the circuit court did not do so here.

       Jodie’s argument, however, is not preserved on appeal because he never made this

argument to the circuit court. The parties were invited to file a posthearing brief on the issues

to be decided by the court. Jodie elected not to address the issue of child support in his

brief, nor did he respond to the options for child-support calculations that Candie proposed

in her posttrial brief. Then, when the circuit court issued its letter opinion setting forth its

gross-income calculations for purposes of child support, Jodie again failed to object on this

ground. When Candie submitted her proposed divorce decree incorporating the court’s

child-support calculations, Jodie objected only to the specific amount of rental income used

in determining child support and to the date he began paying child support. This is despite

the inclusion of a child-support worksheet detailing the court’s calculation of gross income

and despite a line item on the worksheet specifically designated for spousal support. Here,

Jodie had ample opportunity to object to the court’s calculations prior to the entry of the

                                               13
divorce decree and did not do so. Arguments not raised at trial will not be addressed for the

first time on appeal, and parties are bound on appeal by the scope and nature of the

objections and arguments they presented at trial. Rudder v. Hurst, 2009 Ark. App. 577, at 13,

337 S.W.3d 565, 574.

                            B. Rental-Property-Related Expenses

       Jodie next argues that the circuit court included only the gross monthly rental

payments in income and failed to take into consideration expenses related to those properties

in violation of Administrative Order No. 10. Jodie argues that the court acknowledged that

the rental properties incurred expenses, including taxes, insurance, and repair fees but failed

to exclude these expenses in the calculation of income for purposes of the child-support

guidelines. As a result, he contends that the parties’ combined incomes were inflated,

resulting in a higher overall support obligation.

       Jodie, however, failed to provide any documentation related to those expenses. He

did not document any of these expenses on his affidavit of financial means, and when asked,

could not declare how much income he received from those rental properties after expenses.

As a result, the court was provided with the amount of rental income the parties collected

on their investment property but was left to speculate on the expenses related to those

properties. Because the court had no basis on which to calculate expenses, it was left to

include the entirety of the rental income in the child-support calculation.

       Jodie also argues that the circuit court erred in assigning him $675 a month in rental

income and Candie $725 a month in rental income. He argues that the evidence reflects

                                              14
that Candie receives $750 a month in rental income and he receives only $650. However, as

Candie states in her brief, Jodie fails to show how these minor discrepancies affected the

amount of child support owed.

                                  C. Imputation of Income

       Jodie next argues that the circuit court erred in imputing income to him because he

is neither unemployed nor underemployed. Pursuant to the guidelines, income may be

imputed to a parent if the court finds that the parent is unemployed or underemployed.

Jodie contends that because there was no evidence that he was either unemployed or

underemployed, the court’s imputation of income was erroneous.

       Again, Jodie failed to raise this specific argument with the circuit court. While he did

argue to the circuit court that he no longer engaged in his auto-body work or mowing

businesses and, therefore, no longer earned income from them, he did not argue, as he does

here, that the court erred in the imputation of income or the amount imputed to him. Again,

Jodie had ample opportunity after the court’s letter opinion to object to the court’s award

and to ask for reconsideration, arguing that the court could not impute income because he

was neither unemployed nor underemployed. He did not do so.

       In any event, there was evidence presented that Jodie worked one out of every three

days as battalion chief for the fire department, performed body work on cars, and that for

thirty years before Candie moved out of the residence, he supplemented his income mowing

yards. While Jodie testified that he is no longer engaging in the latter two businesses, the

circuit court found his testimony to be not credible. As stated above, we give due deference

                                              15
to that court’s superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight

to be given to their testimony.

                                  D. Supplemental Insurance

       Jodie next argues that the circuit court erred in failing to deduct his payments for the

children’s supplemental health-insurance policy. He argues that the guidelines provide that

health-insurance premiums shall be added to the worksheet and must be considered by the

court when determining the total child-support obligation.

       Jodie readily admitted at trial, however, that the AFLAC insurance policy is a

supplemental accident policy, not health insurance. It is a policy that pays out a certain

amount to the policyholder above and beyond what is covered by health insurance upon an

accident or emergency. Under that policy, AFLAC will pay Jodie if the kids become ill and

have to be hospitalized. Jodie acknowledged that it does not pay for the children’s routine

doctor or dental visits. The children’s actual health insurance is covered by ARKids First and

is provided at no cost to either party. Moreover, even if the AFLAC policy is considered

supplemental health insurance, nothing in Administrative Order No. 10 requires the court

to deduct the cost of supplemental health insurance from the calculation of child support.

Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in the calculation of child support on this basis.

                                    E. Advisory Opinion

       Jodie’s final argument with respect to the court’s award of child support relates to the

court’s statement that any funds paid outside the clearinghouse would be considered a gift.

                                              16
Jodie claims this amounts to an improper advisory opinion as to a future hypothetical

situation.

       Here, the circuit court did not render an impermissible advisory opinion. A decision

that cannot affect the legal rights of the parties is an impermissible advisory opinion as are

opinions on abstract legal questions. 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 390 Westlaw (database

updated Mar. 10, 2024). At the hearing, Candie presented evidence that Jodie would hand

deliver the child-support payments to her and record their interactions. She testified he once

almost ran over her arm when she leaned over to pick up a check that had fallen to the

ground. Jodie testified that he felt it necessary to hand deliver the support payments and

record their interactions because he believed Candie might not deposit the checks and claim

he had not made the required payments. To prevent a future dispute over the payment of

child support, the court ordered that all payments be made through the clearinghouse. Thus,

the court’s statement clearly related to an issue in dispute and was not an impermissible

advisory opinion.

       Regardless, Jodie never made this argument to the circuit court, despite having the

opportunity to do so. He made multiple objections to the proposed order that contained the

same disputed language but did not make the objection he now asserts on appeal. Issues not

raised or ruled on in the circuit court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. In

re Est. of Reinkoester, 2023 Ark. App. 517, 678 S.W.3d 97; Holliman v. Johnson, 2016 Ark.

App. 39, 480 S.W.3d 903.

                                      II. Spousal Support

                                              17
           Jodie next maintains that the circuit court erred in its award of alimony. He contends

that, in awarding Candie $1750 a month in permanent alimony, the court failed to consider

his ability to pay and only did so as a means of punishing Jodie for marital misconduct.

           First, he claims that the amount awarded does not rectify the economic imbalance

between the parties because he cannot afford to pay $1750 a month in alimony and because

the court’s calculation grossly overcompensates Candie for the inequity in the parties’

earning abilities. He further argues that Candie was awarded half the marital assets, including

rental properties, and half of his marital share of his LOPFI pension and his Arkansas

Diamond 457(b) retirement plan. Thus, she will gain a significant boost in income once he

retires.

           He further contends that the court based its alimony award on facts unsupported by

the record. For example, the court stated that Candie had amassed substantial credit-card

debt because she could not afford to eat and keep a roof over her head on $900 to $1000 a

month. However, Jodie claims it is impossible to determine how much of the $40,000 in

credit-card debt preceded her separation from Jodie and how much was accrued after. He

further contends that the circuit court had no basis for concluding that Candie would likely

incur more medical expenses in the future.

           Finally, Jodie argues that the court awarded Candie an excessive amount of spousal

support as a means of punishing him for his “offensive” actions in moving his girlfriend and

her son into his home before the divorce was final. He points to the court’s statements from

the bench chastising him for the example his actions set for his children.

                                                 18
       The purpose of alimony is to rectify the economic imbalances in earning power and

standard of living in light of the particular facts in each case. Chekuri v. Nekkalapudi, 2020

Ark. 74, at 16, 593 S.W.3d 467, 477. Alimony is not awarded as a reward to the receiving

spouse or as punishment of the spouse against whom it is charged. Drummond v. Drummond,

267 Ark. 449, 453, 590 S.W.2d 658, 661 (1979). We have held that the primary factors to

be considered in determining whether to award alimony are the financial need of one spouse

and the other spouse’s ability to pay. Chekuri, 2020 Ark. 74, at 16–17, 593 S.W.3d at 477.

In addition, the following secondary factors should be considered: (1) the financial

circumstances of both parties; (2) the couple’s past standard of living; (3) the value of jointly

owned property; (4) the amount and nature of the parties’ income, both current and

anticipated; (5) the extent and nature of the resources and assets of each of the parties; (6)

the amount of income of each that is spendable; (7) the earning ability and capacity of each

party; (8) the property awarded or given to one of the parties, either by the court or the other

party; (9) the disposition made of the homestead or jointly owned property; (10) the

condition of health and medical needs of both parties; (11) the duration of the marriage;

and (12) the amount of child support. Id. at 17, 593 S.W.3d at 477.

       A circuit court’s decision regarding alimony is a matter that lies within its sound

discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion; an abuse of

discretion is discretion exercised thoughtlessly and without due consideration. Roberts v.

Roberts, 2023 Ark. App. 438, 676 S.W.3d 381.

                                               19
       Jodie’s claim that the circuit court awarded alimony to punish him for his marital

misconduct is misplaced. In its award of alimony, the court stated that it had considered the

requisite factors in making an award of alimony and determined that those factors

substantiated an alimony award. The court did note that Jodie’s decision to financially

provide for his live-in girlfriend while forcing his disabled wife to rely on financial assistance

from family and credit cards to survive was offensive. However, rather than viewing this as

a decision to punish Jodie, it could also be seen as the court’s awareness that he has an ability

to provide for someone other than himself and that he is voluntarily reducing his disposable

income by financially supporting his girlfriend and her son. Jodie testified that his girlfriend

is gainfully employed and was living on her own and paying her own rent prior to moving in

with Jodie. Jodie testified that he did not require her to contribute to the household because

he believed it was his responsibility to do so. Thus, the record does not demonstrate that the

circuit court’s rulings were motivated by a desire to punish Jodie; therefore, we reject this

contention.

       As for his claim that he cannot afford to pay the alimony award on the basis of his

net take-home pay, his calculations fail to take into account the additional income the court

determined he is or could be making from his side businesses. Moreover, his claim that

Candie will gain a substantial boost in income once he retires is not supported by the record.

He presented no testimony as to how much his pension would be worth upon retirement.

Additionally, while Jodie claims that Candie received income-producing property in the

divorce, Candie testified that she intended to sell the property in order to reimburse her

                                               20
brother for the money he had loaned her. As to her medical expenses, the circuit court heard

evidence that Candie has rheumatoid arthritis and is unable to work. She is under the regular

care of a rheumatologist and is on eight or nine different medications for her disease.

       Here, the circuit court considered all the factors when making its alimony award,

including the length of the parties’ marriage, Candie’s disability, and her ability to live solely

on her disability income. The court also took into account the respective incomes of the

parties and found that Jodie has the ability to pay alimony to Candie. These facts are

supported by the evidence presented at trial. Because the circuit court considered all the

factors and based its decision on the facts presented at trial, the court did not abuse its

discretion in awarding alimony.

                                    III. Division of Marital Debt

       Finally, Jodie argues that the circuit court erred in ordering him to pay 73 percent of

the parties’ marital debt when the assets were equally divided between them. He contends

that, taking into consideration his child-support and alimony obligations, his net income is

substantially less than Candie’s.

       An allocation of the parties’ debt is an essential item to be resolved in a divorce

dispute, and it must be considered in the context of the distribution of all the parties’

property. Williams v. Williams, 82 Ark. App. 294, 108 S.W.3d 629 (2003). A circuit court’s

decision to allocate debt to a particular party or in a particular manner is a question of fact

and will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Id. It is not erroneous to

                                                 21
determine that debts should be allocated between the parties because of their relative ability

to pay. Id.

       Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-12-315 (Repl. 2020) provides that all marital

property shall be distributed one-half to each party unless the court finds such a division to

be inequitable, and when property is divided unequally the court must state its basis and

reasons for not dividing the marital property equally between the parties, and the basis and

reasons should be recited in the order entered in the matter. But it is well settled that section

9-12-315 does not apply to the division of marital debts. Williams, supra.

       Here, Candie testified that the purchases she made on the credit cards were for

essential items, like food, gas, and clothing for the children, even while they were separated

but living in the same household. Jodie testified that Candie has a spending problem and

that the credit-card bills were due to inappropriate and excessive spending. He did not,

however, present any documentation to support his claims, and the circuit court found that

his testimony was not credible. Having reviewed the evidence before us, it is clear that the

circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its division of the marital debt.

       Affirmed.

       ABRAMSON, J., agrees.

       VIRDEN, J., concurs.

       BART F. VIRDEN, Judge, concurring. As stated in the conclusion of the majority

opinion, I do agree with the holding. What is not stated, however, is my reluctance. I agree

that the result we have announced here is merited; indeed, it is even mandated by our

                                               22
standard of review. I write separately to highlight the importance of the decision today as

both a cautionary tale and a warning. The requirement of issue preservation is ever present

in our work. It is a well-reasoned doctrine. We should not review a decision by the trial court

when that court has not had the opportunity to rule on it first. Grynwald v. Grynwald, 2022

Ark. App. 310, 651 S.W.3d 177 (recognizing that an argument not first presented to the trial

court for a ruling is not preserved and thus not addressed on appeal). If this case had been

presented to us in a different posture, i.e., had there been a trial and then a decision issued

by the court—with nothing in between—I would argue vociferously that Jodie’s arguments

were, in fact, preserved and properly before us. Then, I would steadfastly maintain that the

trial court erred by not taking into account spousal support when setting child support. The

case would be reversed on that ground alone in my opinion.1

       However, as stated in the majority opinion, that is not the situation before us. Jodie

had multiple opportunities to provide input into the decision but failed to do so. We are

not, with the majority opinion, requiring postjudgment motions to preserve an issue for

appeal. The facts of this case show that the matter was ongoing after the hearing considering

the parties’ posttrial motions, the trial court’s letter opinion, and opposing counsel’s

       1
        The same may be said for the imputed-income issue. Jodie’s assertion that he worked
full time (sixty hours a week) was not challenged. The trial court, in essence, ordered him to
work more than full time. As stated in the majority opinion, the purpose of imputing income
is to account for the situation in which one is underemployed or unemployed. Jodie’s
situation is neither.

                                              23
proposed orders, and there were ample indications that the child-support calculations were

not correct as submitted.

       Taylor & Taylor Law Firm, P.A., by: Tory H. Lewis, Andrew M. Taylor, and Tasha C.

Taylor, for appellant.

       Kamps & Griffis PLLC, by: Adrienne M. Griffis, for appellee.

                                             24