## Facts

- Roscoe A. Dykman (age 85), a psychologist, and Kathryn D. Dykman (age 52), a psychiatrist, divorced in Arkansas circuit court.
- For several years, Kathryn earned substantial income and paid Roscoe up to $12,000 per month with the understanding the money would be used for marital purposes, including reducing debt on real property.
- Evidence showed Roscoe instead used marital funds for substantial gifts and payments to younger women, including large checks and the purchase of an automobile.
- Roscoe claimed the payments were short-term loans and denied romantic involvement, but a letter he wrote described his intent to finalize a divorce while continuing to see another woman.
- Kathryn developed a vocal impairment that interfered with her ability to work as a psychiatrist, contributing to job loss and reduced present income while she attempted to establish a private practice.
- The circuit court awarded Kathryn alimony; Roscoe appealed only the alimony award, arguing his advanced age made the award improper.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding alimony to the wife in light of the husband’s advanced age.
2. Whether the husband’s spending of marital funds on other women could be considered in the alimony analysis because it related to the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the alimony award.
- The court held the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ordering alimony despite the husband’s age.
- The court accepted consideration of the husband’s financial misconduct because it meaningfully related to the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay.
- The court noted alimony remains subject to later modification upon a material change in circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- An alimony award lies within the circuit court’s discretion and is reversed only for abuse of discretion.
- The primary alimony factors are the recipient spouse’s need and the payor spouse’s ability to pay.
- Marital fault is generally not a factor in alimony, but misconduct may be considered when it meaningfully relates to need or ability to pay.
- Advanced age is not a categorical bar to alimony; courts focus on actual financial circumstances and capacity, with the possibility of future modification if circumstances materially change.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed alimony because the wife showed financial need and reduced earning capacity, the husband showed ability to pay, and his diversion of marital funds was properly considered as it affected both need and ability to pay; the husband’s age alone did not make the award an abuse of discretion.


Dykman v. Dykman, 98 Ark. App. 145, 253 S.W.3d 23 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007)