Dykman v. Dykman
253 S.W.3d 23, 98 Ark. App. 145, 2007 Ark. App. LEXIS 186 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While marital fault is ordinarily not a factor in awarding alimony, financial misconduct that directly contributes to the other spouse's financial need may be considered because it meaningfully relates to the primary alimony factors of one spouse's need and the other's ability to pay.
Facts:
- The appellee, a psychiatrist, delivered substantial earnings of up to $12,000 per month to her husband, appellant Roscoe Dykman, with the understanding he would use the funds for marital purposes, such as paying down debt on their shared property.
- During this time, Dykman was planning to divorce the appellee and used marital assets to give substantial gifts, including an automobile and thousands of dollars in checks, to several younger women.
- Dykman forged the appellee's signature to obtain a second mortgage on one of their joint properties without her knowledge or consent.
- Dykman also fraudulently forged the appellee's name to their tax returns.
- The appellee sustained a neurological injury in 1999 that caused dysphonia, a vocal impairment that led to her termination from employment and limited her ability to earn income, forcing her to attempt to establish her own practice.
- Dykman placed a snake in a box on the appellee's driveway with a note that read "Die Bitch".
Procedural Posture:
- A party filed for divorce in an Arkansas state trial court (chancery court).
- The trial court issued a divorce decree that, among other things, ordered the appellant, Roscoe Dykman, to pay alimony to the appellee.
- Roscoe Dykman, as appellant, appealed the trial court's alimony award to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a spouse's financial misconduct, which dissipates marital assets and thereby contributes to the other spouse's financial need, justify an award of alimony, even when the paying spouse is of an advanced age?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge John Mauzy Pittman
Yes. A spouse's financial misconduct justifies an alimony award when it directly causes the other spouse's need. The primary factors in awarding alimony are the need of one spouse and the ability of the other to pay. Although fault is generally not a factor, it can be considered when it meaningfully relates to need or ability to pay. Here, Dykman's diversion of marital funds to his extramarital affairs, instead of paying marital debts as the appellee believed, directly created the appellee's current financial need and risk of bankruptcy. This financial misconduct is distinct from his 'moral fault' for the affairs or other threatening behavior, which are not legitimate considerations for alimony. Despite Dykman's advanced age of 85, he was employed and the alimony amount was well within his ability to pay, and the award remains subject to future modification if his circumstances change.
Analysis:
This decision refines the general rule that marital fault is irrelevant to alimony by carving out a significant exception for financial misconduct. The case establishes a precedent that distinguishes between 'moral' fault (e.g., the act of adultery), which remains irrelevant, and 'economic' fault (e.g., dissipating marital assets on an affair), which is highly relevant if it directly impacts the other spouse's financial need. This holding provides a basis for courts to use alimony as a tool to remedy financial harm caused by one spouse's malfeasance during the marriage. It signals that a party's egregious financial behavior can and will have direct consequences in the alimony determination.
