your control and not someone else’s. You got terminated for reasons that were partially or totally within your control. . . . he’s capable of making more and the reason he isn’t making more is something he did. The case law is clear that if there’s a finding that he’s capable of making more, then I can impute what he might be able to make and come, up with a determination on that. He said that he lost his $18.00 an hour job because of things he did, not because they just terminated him or the job ended. I think that’s the difference here. I think there’s other jobs he could have done. He lost a good job because of his own doing and that’s my reasoning. The trial judge correctly stated the law and relied upon it to impute income. See Hurley v. Hurley, 255 Ark. 68, 498 S.W.2d 887 (1973) (<HOLDING>); see also Taylor v. Taylor, 8 Ark. App. 6, 648
holding that former husband was not entitled to evidentiary hearing on petition to modify alimony where he failed to demonstrate substantial change in circumstances since entry of a prior order denying modification of alimony from which he did not appeal holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony holding that changes that are the result of decisions made by the obligor cannot be urged as a change in circumstances to justify reduction of alimony holding that final order for alimony may be modified by trial court on showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party holding that receipt of a large inheritance constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying termination of permanent alimony