551 S.W.3d 394
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Evelyn and James (Jim) Chism remarried in 1993, separated in 2014, and Evelyn filed for divorce; their adult son Greg is also a party to certain claims.
- Jim counterclaimed seeking (1) an accounting and one-half of Evelyn’s USPS earnings/retirement (2002–2013) allegedly kept in her separate account, and (2) to set aside June 12, 2012 conveyances (warranty deed and mineral deed) as procured by Evelyn’s undue influence.
- The circuit court awarded Jim roughly $118,721 (one-half of $237,442.98) for Evelyn’s unaccounted-for USPS earnings/retirement, found most marital property to be sold and divided equally, and declined to set aside the 2012 conveyances.
- The court entered judgments against Greg: $97,500 for an unpaid balance on an oral agreement to buy a house and five acres (Evelyn and Jim each awarded half) and roughly $23,552.64 (split equally) for a vehicle loan.
- After an initial dismissal for lack of a final order, the trial court issued Rule 54(b) certifications and related orders; all three parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Evelyn / Jim / Greg) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evelyn must account for USPS earnings/retirement and whether Jim was entitled to half | Evelyn: She lawfully held and spent earnings in her separate account; no evidence of intent to defraud | Jim: Earnings were marital and unaccounted for; entitled to one-half | Reversed — no evidence of intent to defraud; spouse may transfer/hold funds absent fraudulent intent |
| Whether 2012 conveyances should be set aside for undue influence | Jim (cross-complainant): Evelyn dominated him; presumption of invalidity should apply | Evelyn: No dominance; transfers were voluntary | Affirmed — trial court found no position of dominance by Evelyn; presumption never triggered |
| Whether oral agreement for Greg to buy house and five acres is enforceable | Evelyn/Jim: Trial court awarded unpaid balance ($97,500) | Greg: Agreement unenforceable under statute of frauds; no property identified | Reversed — oral contract to convey land barred; five acres not identified |
| Whether Greg owes balance on vehicle loan | Evelyn: Loan not forgiven (despite Evelyn’s testimony) | Greg: Loan forgiven by Evelyn on behalf of both parents | Affirmed — trial court credited testimony that loan remained unpaid; judgment against Greg proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurtt v. Hurtt, 93 Ark. App. 37, 216 S.W.3d 604 (review of domestic-relations equity decisions de novo)
- Lyons v. Lyons, 13 Ark. App. 63, 679 S.W.2d 811 (appellate deference to trial court credibility; deed-set-aside review)
- Skokos v. Skokos, 332 Ark. 520, 968 S.W.2d 26 (spouse may transfer or hold property absent intent to defraud other spouse)
- Young v. Young, 101 Ark. App. 454, 278 S.W.3d 603 (discusses presumption of invalidity where confidential/dominant relationship shown)
- Myrick v. Myrick, 339 Ark. 1, 2 S.W.3d 60 (presumption requires proof of further evidentiary facts beyond dominance)
- James v. Medford, 256 Ark. 1002, 512 S.W.2d 545 (statute of frauds requires identification/means of identifying land to enforce land contracts)
- Farmers Home Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bank of Pocahontas, 355 Ark. 19, 129 S.W.3d 832 (appellate standard respecting credibility determinations)