be a change in circumstances. |s(Emphasis added.) Michael’s argument that the circuit court’s award of permanent alimony should be reversed “as a matter of law” is not well taken. While Michael is correct that there is no such animal as “permanent” alimony, the nomenclature employed by the circuit court does not constitute error. As set forth in the case above, “permanent”—or as in the present case “lifetime”—alimony is just another way of saying that the circuit court has chosen not to limit the amount of time a spouse should receive alimony. We find no error, and we affirm. Michael also contests the amount of the alimony award: Our court has never reviewed an award of alimony solely on a mathematical-formula analysis. Kuchmas v. Kuchmas, 368 Ark. 48, 46, 243 S.W.3d 270, 272 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, because the circuit court considered
holding that the pearce presumption was not designed to prevent the imposition of an increased sentence on retrial for some valid reason associated with the need for flexibility and discretion in the sentencing process but was premised on the apparent need to guard against vindictiveness in the resentencing process recognizing that expungement is appropriate when unusually substantial harm to the defendant not in any way attributable to him outweighs the governments need for a record of the arrest recognizing need for flexibility and discretion by the secretary in section 13c certifications holding that the amount of alimony should not be reduced to a mathematical formula because the need for flexibility outweighs the need for relative certainty recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants