2013 Ark. App. 615
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Joann and Darrell Bradford married in 1993 and divorced in 2012; the decree divided various assets including an Edward Jones account held in both names as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- Before the marriage, Darrell owned an Edward Jones account valued at $93,207.09 (statement dated Feb. 26, 1993) containing annuity and IRA holdings.
- Immediately after marriage Darrell transferred that pre-marriage account into a new Edward Jones account held in both parties’ names as tenants by the entirety.
- The joint account had a later statement (July 29, 2011) showing a substantially larger balance; some funds were from other accounts, royalties, and separate IRAs.
- The circuit court treated the pre-marriage $93,207.09 portion as Darrell’s separate property and awarded it to him; Joann appealed that ruling.
- Darrell had asked the trial court for an unequal division of marital property based on disability and limited employability; the trial court cited an unequal distribution in its decree when allocating assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether funds placed into an account titled in both spouses’ names are presumed tenancy by the entirety | Bradford (Joann) argued the transfer into joint names created a tenancy by the entirety, making the funds marital property subject to equal division | Darrell argued he overcame the tenancy-by-entirety presumption and that the court could award unequal distribution based on his circumstances | The Court held the creation of the joint account established a presumption of tenancy by the entirety that was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; the $93,207.09 was marital property |
| Whether the trial court properly characterized pre-marriage contributions as separate property despite the subsequent joint title | Joann argued title in both names controls and pre-marital character was extinguished by the joint-title gift presumption | Darrell contended his pre-marital funds remained his separate property despite retitling | The Court held retitling into joint names raised a presumption of gift and tenancy by the entirety; the trial court erred in treating the funds as separate property |
| Whether the trial court may order unequal division after finding assets marital | Joann argued that if funds are marital they should be equally divided absent strong statutory reasons | Darrell argued an unequal division was justified by statutory factors (disability, income, employability) | The Court recognized trial courts may order unequal division but remanded for the trial court to apply statutory factors and to state written reasons if it keeps an unequal split |
| Standard of proof to overcome tenancy-by-entirety presumption | Joann asserted no evidence met the high standard to rebut the presumption | Darrell asserted he presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption | The Court confirmed clear and convincing evidence is required and found no such evidence in the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Cole, 53 Ark. App. 140, 920 S.W.2d 32 (Ark. App. 1996) (presumption of tenancy by the entirety when property titled in husband and wife)
- Lofton v. Lofton, 23 Ark. App. 203, 745 S.W.2d 635 (Ark. App. 1988) (definition of clear and convincing evidence and tenancy-by-entirety presumptions)
- McEntire v. McEntire’s Estate, 267 Ark. 169, 590 S.W.2d 241 (Ark. 1979) (tenancy by the entirety rights in accounts is a question of law)
- Ramsey v. Ramsey, 259 Ark. 16, 531 S.W.2d 28 (Ark. 1976) (consideration belonging to one spouse is not dispositive where retitling suggests a gift)