Baker v. Baker
429 S.W.3d 389
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Shanna and Matthew Baker married in 2005, had one son (born 2008), separated in 2010, and Shanna filed for divorce; this is an appeal from the White County Circuit Court's 2012 divorce decree.
- Matt received a 5-acre tract deeded to him by his parents the day before the wedding; trial court found that acreage was a premarital gift and his separate property.
- The marital home sat on that acreage; the mortgage balance equaled the home's appraisal (about $96,500). The court awarded the house and associated debt to Matt, but ordered Matt to pay Shanna half of the mortgage principal paid with marital funds ($2,042.22).
- The court classified a disputed 1905 gold coin as marital property and divided other personal property.
- The court found total outstanding marital debt of $22,672.37 and ordered an allocation approximating equal liability; it also ordered Shanna to reimburse Matt half of his post-separation credit-card payments.
- The court awarded custody of the child to Matt based on credibility findings, concerns about Shanna's associations and stability, and Matt’s parental support network.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (Matt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 5-acre tract was marital property or Matt's separate pre-marital gift | Shanna: Matt "regifted" the acreage to the marital estate by referring to it as theirs and by mortgage being in both names | Matt: Parents deeded the tract to him before marriage; he never put Shanna on the deed | Court: Acreage was a premarital gift to Matt; not marital property (trial court credibility credited Matt and his parents) |
| Whether the marital home should be divided equally or awarded to Matt with credit to Shanna | Shanna: House was marital and worth ~ $96,565; she should receive half (~$48k) | Matt: Sale impractical (septic on parents’ property, proximity), court awarded house to him and credited Shanna for half of principal paid | Court: Award of house to Matt (with $2,042.22 credit to Shanna) was not clearly erroneous given circumstances and credibility findings |
| Classification and division of debts (marital credit-card debt, business debt, and Shanna’s alleged debts) | Shanna: Trial court effectively made her liable for ~90% of debts; some business charges belong to Matt’s company; she had student loans and personal card debt that should be allocated | Matt: Court reasonably allocated approx. half of marital debt to each; business debt tied to Matt and evidence of statements was excluded for discovery violations | Court: Debt allocation not clearly erroneous; exclusion of undisclosed credit-card statements was permissible sanction; Shanna failed to prove her asserted debts at trial |
| Child custody — whether trial court erred in awarding custody to Matt | Shanna: She was primary caregiver since birth; both parents had histories making custody a "wash" | Matt: Argued he would provide greater stability; challenged Shanna’s credibility and living arrangements; presented parental support network | Court: Affirmed custody to Matt; trial court’s credibility findings and best-interest analysis (stability, parental conduct, support) were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- McKay v. McKay, 340 Ark. 171, 8 S.W.3d 525 (discusses presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital property)
- Cole v. Cole, 53 Ark. App. 140, 920 S.W.2d 32 (presumption of tenancy by the entirety when property placed in both names; clear and convincing evidence required to overcome)
- Barnes v. Barnes, 378 S.W.3d 766 (2010 Ark. App.) (appellate standard for reviewing property-division findings; deference to trial-court credibility)
- Williams v. Williams, 82 Ark. App. 294, 108 S.W.3d 629 (trial court’s authority to allocate marital debt and that debt allocation is fact question)
- Roberts v. Yang, 370 S.W.3d 170 (2010 Ark.) (issues not raised below are not preserved for appeal)
- Matthews v. Matthews, 322 S.W.3d 15 (2009 Ark. App.) (trial court’s discretion to impose discovery sanctions)
- Wilson v. Fullerton, 332 Ark. 111, 964 S.W.2d 208 (exclusion of evidence may be mitigated if contents are later provided to the court)
- Bamburg v. Bamburg, 386 S.W.3d 31 (2011 Ark. App.) (best-interest and custody factors; trial court’s superior position on credibility in custody cases)