The Arkansas Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to award permanent alimony to Amy Rowe following her divorce from Robert Rowe, Jr. This ruling, delivered on September 30, 2026, affects the financial responsibilities of both parties and sets a precedent for future divorce cases in the state.
The case originated in the Garland County Circuit Court, where Amy Rowe filed for divorce on August 19, 2024, after nearly 17 years of marriage. The couple has three children, two of whom are minors. In her complaint, Amy sought full custody of the children, child support, and both temporary and permanent spousal support. Robert Rowe responded by requesting that the court deny Amy's requests.
During a one-day hearing on January 22, 2025, both parties entered stipulations regarding their personal property and debts. Robert Rowe was to keep all personal property in his possession, including vehicles and recreational equipment, while Amy Rowe would retain her personal property. The couple also agreed to share responsibility for medical debts related to their children.
Testimony during the hearing revealed that Amy had primarily been a homemaker and had only worked part-time during their marriage. She had a gross monthly income of $2,165 from working as an Uber driver and making sporadic deliveries for Walmart, but her monthly expenses totaled $3,544.38. Robert, on the other hand, had a gross monthly income of $7,390.50 and substantial assets, including a profit-sharing account and an IRA.
On February 11, 2026, the circuit court issued a divorce decree awarding Amy $1,000 per month in permanent alimony, effective February 14, 2025. The court based its decision on several factors, including the length of the marriage, the earning capacity of each party, and their financial circumstances. The court also ordered Robert to pay $737 per month in child support for their two minor children.
The court ruled, "The court has considered the need of [Amy] for alimony and the ability of [Robert] to pay." It emphasized the importance of evaluating the parties' financial needs and the ability of one spouse to support the other following a divorce.
In its ruling, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Robert did not demonstrate that the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding alimony. The court noted that Robert's argument focused on Amy's alleged lack of financial need, claiming she had no intent to rehabilitate herself by pursuing a full-time job in accounting.
However, the court found that Amy's income fell short of her monthly expenses, leaving her with a deficit of $1,379.38. The court also highlighted that Amy had been relying on her mother for financial support after Robert ceased his biweekly payments.
The appellate court stated, "We have held that permanent alimony in such a situation is not an abuse of discretion." It emphasized that the circuit court had thoroughly considered the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.
This ruling has significant implications for future divorce cases in Arkansas. It reinforces the principle that alimony is meant to address economic imbalances between spouses and that the court has discretion in determining the amount and necessity of alimony based on the unique circumstances of each case.
Moving forward, this decision may influence how courts evaluate alimony requests, particularly in cases involving long-term marriages where one spouse has been primarily responsible for homemaking and childcare. It also underscores the need for thorough financial assessments during divorce proceedings.
As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Robert Rowe intends to pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.