Bamburg v. Bamburg
2011 Ark. App. 546
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- This is an appeal from a divorce in Pulaski County Circuit Court following a 22-year marriage between Bob Bamburg and Lisa Bamburg.
- The trial court awarded Lisa primary custody of their two children and divided marital assets; Bob challenged custody, asset division, and reimbursement for funds spent toward Lisa’s adulterous relationship.
- Lisa cross-appealed seeking reconciliation of the joint checking account and half of Bob’s pendente lite income for the divorce period.
- The court found Lisa was the primary caregiver and that the custody arrangement was in the children's best interest, with both parents having valid parenting roles.
- The court divided realty, vehicles, and personal property, and ordered limited reimbursements related to Lisa’s relationship; Bob and Lisa appealed various aspects.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Bob on most points, reversed on the Kids Korner inventory issue, and affirmed Lisa on her cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody: best interests standard adherence | Bob argued Lisa’s affair and conduct warranted exclusive custody. | Lisa argued custody should reflect best interests with her as primary caregiver. | Custody affirmed; no clear error; best interests supported Lisa. |
| Division of Lisa's Kids Korner inventory | Bob claimed $18,000 inventory value should be split; argued unequal asset division harmed him. | Lisa claimed Kids Korner assets and other business interests could be retained by her. | Reversed; error in equalization; Bob entitled to $9,000 for inventoryUneven division partly corrected. |
| Division of marital vehicles | Bob contends unequal vehicle awards lacked explanation and harmed him. | Lisa supported the court’s vehicle allocation as fair. | Affirmed as to vehicles; no reversible error given stated preferences and agreement. |
| Reimbursement for marital funds used toward relationship | Bob sought reimbursement for funds spent on his wife’s relationship. | Lisa disputed extent and documentation of such expenditures. | Partial reimbursement; amounts determined with limited proof; not clearly erroneous. |
| Lisa's cross-appeal: pendente lite income and joint account | Lisa claimed Bob should remit half of pendente lite income and reconcile joint funds. | Bob and Lisa both retained income; court credibility-based findings govern. | Cross-appeal denied; no clear error in denying these requests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. Cook, 103 Ark. App. 207 (Ark. App. 2008) (custody factors and best interests)
- Rector v. Rector, 58 Ark. App. 132 (Ark. App. 1997) (considerations in child custody determinations)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 353 Ark. 69 (Ark. 2003) (de novo standard with deference to trial court credibility)
- Ross v. Ross, 2010 Ark. App. 497 (Ark. App. 2010) (custody discretion and factual review)
- Judkins v. Duvall, 97 Ark. App. 260 (Ark. App. 2007) (trial court credibility in best interests analysis)
- Keathley v. Keathley, 76 Ark. App. 150 (Ark. App. 2001) (property division factors and inequitable distribution)
- Hernandez v. Hernandez, 371 Ark. 323 (Ark. 2007) (de novo review of property division; equity standard)
- Atkinson v. Atkinson, 72 Ark. App. 15 (Ark. App. 2000) (extramarital conduct as factor in custody)
- Ketron v. Ketron, 15 Ark. App. 325 (Ark. App. 1985) (conduct and custody considerations)
- Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485 (Ark. 2002) (paramour-related reimbursement and fiduciary duties)
- Williams v. Williams, 82 Ark. App. 294 (Ark. App. 2003) (reimbursement for improper expenses toward paramour)
- Friend v. Friend, 2010 Ark. App. 525 (Ark. App. 2010) (pendente lite income credibility and support)