Bennett v. Bennett
2016 Ark. App. 308
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- After 30 years of marriage Sheila filed for divorce in Aug. 2013; temporary proceedings ordered Danny to pay the first $1,600 of monthly marital debt (identified as first and second mortgage) and parties to split remaining debt halves.
- The marital home was listed and sold in Apr. 2014, producing net proceeds of $22,157.96; the court found Danny had not made all $1,600 payments after the sale and reduced his share of proceeds by outstanding mortgage payments and credited him for repair expenditures.
- The court divided marital assets: Audio Express stock awarded half to each spouse but subject to outstanding purchase debt; IRAs split equally.
- The circuit court awarded Sheila $1,500/month permanent alimony based on length of marriage, income disparity (Danny ~73%, Sheila ~27% of recent income), and Sheila’s need to maintain prior lifestyle; Sheila also awarded $6,641.10 in attorney’s fees and $165 costs.
- Danny appealed, arguing (1) the $1,600 obligation should have ended with sale of the house, (2) attorney’s fees award was unsupported, (3) Audio Express debt was not made equally liable, and (4) alimony award was excessive/punitive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bennett) | Defendant's Argument (Sheila) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $1,600 monthly payment obligation continued after house sale | The temporary order was limited to mortgage payments; obligation should have ceased upon sale | The court intended $1,600 to continue toward other marital debt if mortgages ceased | Court: Affirmed — bench statements + order show intent that $1,600 continue toward other debt post-sale |
| Whether attorney’s-fee award was unsupported | Only ~$1,000 in fees was evidenced; award excessive without detailed accounting | Trial judge had opportunity to observe case and may exercise discretion without exhaustive accounting | Court: Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; documentation not required absent court order |
| Whether Audio Express stock debt was ambiguously allocated | Order ambiguous; debt allocation needs explicit equal liability | Stock and its purchase debt are marital debt and were divided equally | Court: Affirmed — order and bench comments show debt was split equally |
| Whether $1,500/month alimony was an abuse of discretion or punitive | Award punished adultery and caused gross income disparity | Award based on need, length of marriage, income disparity, ability to pay; not punitive | Court: Affirmed — trial court applied correct standards and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chester v. Pilcher, 430 S.W.3d 130 (Ark. Ct. App.) (intent of court controls judgment interpretation)
- Stills v. Stills, 361 S.W.3d 823 (Ark.) (written order controls over conflicting oral ruling)
- Tiner v. Tiner, 422 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. Ct. App.) (trial court has broad discretion on attorney’s fees; exhaustive accounting not always required)
- Coker v. Coker, 423 S.W.3d 599 (Ark.) (fee awards may be reversed where appellee fails to provide required affidavit/documentation)
- Magness v. McEntire, 808 S.W.2d 783 (Ark.) (judgments construed like other instruments; court intent from record controls)
- Delgado v. Delgado, 389 S.W.3d 52 (Ark. Ct. App.) (alimony review: appellate courts defer to trial court absent abuse of discretion)