Beck v. Beck
2017 Ark. App. 311
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Tara filed for divorce in July 2014; parties have one child (born 2003). Temporary orders awarded Tara custody, child support, and temporary spousal support.
- B&B Construction & Specialties, Inc. (B&B) was incorporated in 1999 (pre-marriage). The trial court valued B&B at $265,915 and found a one-half marital interest in Tara based on contributions and commingling.
- The final divorce decree (Dec. 31, 2015) awarded Brian the business and three parcels of real property but required him to pay Tara $242,957.50 (including $132,957.50 for her half of B&B).
- Brian voluntarily paid the monetary award before appealing. The trial court reserved alimony and attorney’s fees, then (Apr. 14, 2016) awarded Tara $500/month alimony and $20,000 in attorney’s fees plus costs.
- Brian appealed, challenging (1) the marital characterization of B&B, (2) the award of alimony after the decree, and (3) the attorney’s fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tara) | Defendant's Argument (Brian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B&B (incorporated pre-marriage) was marital property/subject to division | B&B’s value and proceeds were commingled with marital assets; Tara contributed and therefore has a marital interest | Pre-marital incorporation means the company and its appreciation are nonmarital under statute and Moore | Issue waived: Brian voluntarily paid the decree amount before appeal, constituting waiver of this challenge |
| Whether Brian’s pre-appeal payment was voluntary (affecting right to appeal) | N/A (Tara relied on payment) | Payment was compelled by court deadline and therefore not voluntary; preserves right to appeal | Payment was voluntary (no supersedeas bond or stay); thus Brian waived appellate review on property division |
| Whether the trial court erred by awarding alimony after entry of the final decree | Tara needed support; court retained jurisdiction and considered factors (need, ability to pay, length of marriage, contributions) | Tara already received cash buyout for B&B and other assets; Brian’s cash depletion and business risk make alimony inappropriate | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding $500/month based on need and ability to pay |
| Whether the award of $20,000 in attorney’s fees was improper | Tara sought fees based on disparity of resources and fees paid; trial court considered relative positions and fee affidavit | Tara was in better post-divorce financial position; fee award increases inequity | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion and awarded about 80% of fees paid by Tara |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333 (Ark. 2008) (discusses premarital business and marital interest issues)
- Farrell v. Farrell, 365 Ark. 465 (Ark. 2006) (premarital assets and appreciation addressed)
- Layman v. Layman, 292 Ark. 539 (Ark. 1987) (prior law on business appreciation and marital property)
- Copeland v. Copeland, 84 Ark. App. 303 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review for division of marital property)
- Skokos v. Skokos, 344 Ark. 420 (Ark. 2001) (review standard and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Miller v. Miller, 70 Ark. App. 64 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000) (trial court discretion on attorney-fee awards)
- Jablonski v. Jablonski, 71 Ark. App. 33 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000) (consideration of relative financial positions in fee awards)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 2016 Ark. App. 416 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (alimony factors and discretion)
- Smithson v. Smithson, 2014 Ark. App. 340 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (alimony purpose and review of discretion)