Dykman v. Dykman
Arkansas Court of Appeals
253 S.W.3d 23 (2007)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Roscoe Dykman and Mrs. Dykman were married. Mrs. Dykman was a psychiatrist and earned a significant salary, much of which she set aside for Roscoe to use for marital purposes, such as paying down the couple’s debt. Rather than paying down the debt, however, Roscoe used the money to buy lavish gifts for various mistresses that he had. A few years before the divorce action was filed, Mrs. Dykman sustained injuries that resulted in the inability to speak clearly. This limitation inhibited Mrs. Dykman's work as a psychiatrist. Mrs. Dykman was fired from her job as a result. Mrs. Dykman decided that she would open her own psychiatry practice, as this would give her the ability to take on more of an administrator role, which she could do despite her physical limitations. The parties filed for divorce. At the time of the divorce proceeding, Mrs. Dykman had no income, because she had not yet established her psychiatric practice. The trial court found that Roscoe’s extramarital affairs and the funding of those affairs with marital assets meaningfully related to Mrs. Dykman’s need for alimony, as Roscoe had misappropriated the money Mrs. Dykman had previously sent to pay down the marital debt. As a result, the trial court ordered Roscoe to pay Mrs. Dykman alimony. Roscoe appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pittman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
