Page 609
APPEAL
FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 72DR-02-1692],
HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR, JUDGE
Hall,
Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., Fayetteville,
by: Curtis E. Hogue and M. Scott Hall, for appellant.
Taylor
Law Partners, LLP, Fayetteville, by: Scott E. Smith, for
appellee.
OPINION
KENNETH
S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Roger D. Becker and appellee Patricia Becker (now
McCoy)[1] were married in 1982 and divorced in
2003. There are no minor children of the marriage. The
divorce decree, entered on May 20, 2003, divided the parties’
property, including Roger’s retirement accounts by means of a
Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The divorce decree
contained the following provisions with respect to alimony:
The Court further considered [Patricia’s] request for alimony
and after considering all relevant factors, including those
recited from the bench in open court, the Court finds that
[Patricia] has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
she needs alimony and the evidence has further established
that [Roger] is earning sufficient income to demonstrate his
ability to pay alimony. The Court further considered whether
rehabilitative alimony was appropriate and finds that it is
not.... [Roger] should be, and hereby is, ordered and
directed to pay alimony in the sum of $ 1059.00 per month
beginning May 5, 2003 and continuing on the same day of each
month thereafter throughout the life of [Patricia] or upon
her subsequent remarriage or upon a sufficient showing of a
material and substantial change in circumstances to warrant
modification of this award.
On
July 6, 2017, Roger filed a petition to modify alimony. In
his petition, Roger alleged that he had recently been
terminated from his employment. Roger alleged that his
unemployment left him without the ability to pay the
court-ordered alimony and constituted a material change in
circumstances that warranted a modification.
After
a hearing, the trial court entered an order on April 2, 2018,
denying Roger’s
Page 610
request to modify alimony. In its order, the trial court made
these pertinent findings:
4. That [Roger] has not challenged [Patricia’s] continuing
need for alimony and the Court finds that [Patricia] still
has an ongoing need for alimony in the sum of $ 1059.00 per
month.
5. The Court finds that, while [Roger] is not presently
employed, he has the financial resources to continue to pay
alimony to [Patricia] as ordered. Accordingly, [Roger’s]
Petition to Modify Alimony is hereby denied.
Roger
now appeals from the order denying his petition to modify
alimony. Roger asserts that he no longer has a job and is
living off his retirement assets, which were divided upon
divorce and subsequently increased in value. Roger argues
that the trial court should not have considered his
retirement savings in determining his ability to pay, and he
contends that by continuing to receive alimony Patricia is
getting a ...