Arnoult v. Arnoult
2014 Ark. App. 82
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Arnoult challenges the March 29, 2013 and April 2, 2013 distribution orders from the Craighead County Circuit Court as inconsistent with the October 18, 2012 divorce decree.
- The decree granted Arnoult custody of three minor children, ordered appellee to have supervised visitation and pay child support, and allocated marital property and debts.
- Marital property included the marital residence, 50% interests in Nettleton Auto Sales entities, and funds from those entities; marital debt included the first mortgage and Liberty Bank line of credit.
- The circuit court initially ordered an equal division of marital debt except the Liberty Bank debt, and directed sale of residence and Nettleton interests with proceeds in the court registry.
- The residence sale occurred January 2, 2013; Arnoult bid $1 and acquired the home; the court later treated the purchase as assuming mortgage debts.
- The March 29, 2013 and April 2, 2013 orders distributed $450,000 registry funds with Arnoult receiving $318,686.28 and appellee $128,163.72.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the distribution order conflicted with the divorce decree | Arnoult argues decree controls and order is inconsistent | Arnoult contends decree not final; court may distribute | Order affirmed; not inconsistent with decree |
| Whether Arnoult's purchase at sale constituted a written debt assumption | Arnoult says sale was subject to debt, not a written assumption | Arnoult claims the judge concluded an assumption occurred | Court held she assumed debt, offset against registry funds |
| Whether debt offsets and windfall were properly handled | Arnoult contends offset oversteps the decree's debt allocations | Arnoult argues offset was appropriate to achieve equity | Division deemed equitable; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the decree was a final, appealable order | Arnoult argues decree disposed assets and was final | Arnoult asserts decree was not final | Decree not final; distribution authority remained with court |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. Mason, 2012 Ark. App. 393 (Ark. App. 2012) (distribution of proceeds; court retains authority when decree not final)
- Colquitt v. Colquitt, 2013 Ark. App. 733 (Ark. App. 2013) (de novo review; weight of witness credibility in factual findings)
- Spears v. Spears, 2013 Ark. App. 535 (Ark. App. 2013) (equitable division does not require automatic equal debt split)
- Burns v. Burns, 2012 Ark. App. 522 (Ark. App. 2012) (clearly erroneous standard for debt division; equity governs)
- Frost v. Frost, 2009 Ark. App. 290 (Ark. App. 2009) (broad authority of trial court to distribute marital and nonmarital property)
- Hyde Wholesale Dry Goods Co. v. Edwards, 255 Ark. 211 (Ark. 1973) (realty conveyed subject to mortgage does not equal written debt assumption)