Barnes v. Barnes
2010 Ark. App. 821
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- William Barnes and Deborah Barnes, married in 1994, separated in 2007 and divorced in 2010 on an eighteen-month separation ground.
- They executed an antenuptial agreement pre-marriage stating nonmarital property would remain separate, with specified exceptions in the agreement.
- The divorce decree found the antenuptial agreement valid and divided marital property, awarding Deborah alimony per the agreement.
- A Morgan Keegan account, initially joint, was valued at about $1.53 million in 2007; Deborah later alleged it was marital property and sought equal division.
- Bill moved funds from the joint account to an account in his name alone in 2007 after signing a letter of authorization; the trial court treated the account as marital but ordered an equal division.
- Post-decree, Bill argued the account was his separate property funded by proceeds from nonmarital assets and sought a valuation date adjustment; Deborah pursued attorney’s fees, which were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Morgan Keegan account marital property? | Barnes asserts the account was funded with his nonmarital assets and is therefore separate. | Barnes contends the joint account status and the letter gave Deborah no marital interest beyond routine ownership. | The account was marital property; trial court’s finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Proper valuation date for the Morgan Keegan account | Barnes requested October 2007 valuation; argues the de facto market decline warrants later valuation. | Barnes contends divorce-date valuation is correct under law. | Valuation at the date of divorce (February 2, 2010) is correct. |
| Equitable division of the Marital Morgan Keegan account | Barnes argues the account should be wholly his due to contributions to nonmarital assets and antenuptial terms. | Deborah argues for greater than equal sharing given her contributions. | Account divided equally; no clear error in denying an unequal division. |
| Attorney’s fees | N/A | Deborah seeks attorney’s fees due to disparity in financial positions. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying Deborah’s attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lofton v. Lofton, 745 S.W.2d 635 (Ark. App. 1988) (presumption of tenancy by the entirety; can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence)
- McKay v. McKay, 8 S.W.3d 525 (Ark. 2000) (joint accounts and property characterization in divorce)
- Cole v. Cole, 920 S.W.2d 32 (Ark. App. 1996) (joint asset characterization and division considerations)
- Skokos v. Skokos, 40 S.W.3d 768 (Ark. 2001) (valuation timing for marital property)
- Allen v. Allen, 259 S.W.3d 480 (Ark. App. 2007) (divorce decree valuation timing discussion)
- Brown v. Brown, 284 S.W.3d 17 (Ark. 2008) (significant contributions to increase in value of nonmarital property may belong to marital estate)
- Farrell v. Farrell, 231 S.W.3d 619 (Ark. 2006) (exception to nonmarital property value appreciation rule when contributions are made)
- Dennis v. Dennis, 13 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. App. 2000) (great deference to trial court on credibility and equity findings)
- Roberts v. Yang, 370 S.W.3d 170 (Ark. 2010) (preserves trial court valuation rulings unless clearly erroneous on appeal)