Christopher F. Bailey v. Lindsey Bailey
2024 Ark. App. 587
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2024Background
- Christopher F. Bailey (appellant) and Lindsey Bailey (appellee) divorced; they had commingled property during their marriage, which raised issues about its classification as marital or nonmarital property.
- The court informed the parties that under Arkansas law, property commingled during marriage is considered marital and, if they could not agree, would be sold at auction.
- After the court’s statement, both sides requested a recess and later reached a settlement agreement, which was read into the record without objection.
- Christopher appealed, claiming he was intimidated by the court into the agreement.
- The appellate court reviewed the issue de novo but looks for clear error in factual findings and gives deference to the lower court's credibility determinations.
- The appellant failed to support his arguments with legal authority or proper factual development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether settlement was coerced | Bailey: Court intimidated him into agreement | Lindsey: No coercion; agreement voluntary | No coercion; agreement is binding |
| Sufficiency of appellant’s argument | Bailey: Intimidation not properly developed | Lindsey: Argument unsupported legally | Argument insufficient for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Doss v. Doss, 561 S.W.3d 348 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (clarifies standard for clear error and appellate review in domestic-relations cases)
- Hargrove v. Hargrove, 453 S.W.3d 683 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (outlines de novo review of legal issues in domestic cases)
- Carr v. Carr, 588 S.W.3d 821 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019) (property-settlement agreements are binding contracts once approved by court)
- Williams v. Baptist Health, 598 S.W.3d 487 (Ark. 2020) (failure to develop or support legal argument justifies affirming lower court)