Coker v. Coker
2012 Ark. 383
Ark.2012Background
- Clayton Coker appeals a Garland County Circuit Court divorce decree alleging clear error in granting divorce on indignities and abuse of discretion in attorney’s fees.
- Samantha Hess-Coker filed for divorce asserting Clayton’s long-term adulterous affair caused indignities rendering her life intolerable.
- Court-found evidence shows repeated adulterous episodes beginning circa 2006, with reconciliations and separations, affecting the marital relationship and living arrangements.
- Samantha testified to Clayton’s rude, demeaning behavior and to fear of continued conduct; financial conduct and misuses were also alleged.
- Evidence included substantial marital funds withdrawals and purchases; Samantha’s mother corroborated some conduct; evidence supported a finding of indignities.
- The circuit court awarded Samantha attorney’s fees; on appeal, the fee award was challenged as an abuse of discretion and later remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indignities supported the divorce. | Samantha contends conduct shows settled hate rendering life intolerable. | Coker contends conduct did not amount to habitual indignities sustaining a divorce. | Indignities proven; sufficient corroboration; divorce affirmed. |
| Whether corroboration of indignities was required and sufficient. | Samantha provided corroboration through family testimony and financial conduct. | Coker argues corroboration standards unmet or insufficient. | Slight corroboration adequate; corroboration satisfied. |
| Whether the attorney’s fees award was an abuse of discretion. | Samantha sought fees based on disparity and services rendered. | Coker argues fee amount and basis lack proper justification or record. | Fee award reversed and remanded for anew consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rachel v. Rachel, 294 Ark. 110 (Ark. 1987) (adultery can prove indignities; corroboration not limited to adultery alone)
- Lytle v. Lytle, 266 Ark. 124 (Ark. 1979) (time and nature of indignities; settled hate; permanency required)
- McNew v. McNew, 262 Ark. 567 (Ark. 1977) (scope of indignities; habitual, continuous conduct required)
- Welch v. Welch, 254 Ark. 84 (Ark. 1973) (indignities must be habitual and cause intolerable condition)
- Rose v. Rose, 9 Ark. 507 (Ark. 1849) (early articulation of indignities standard for divorce)
- Oates v. Oates, 340 Ark. 431 (Ark. 2000) (corroboration requirement in contested divorces)
- Russell v. Russell, 275 Ark. 193 (Ark. 1982) (statutory grounds and necessity of corroboration in divorce)
- Bell v. Bell, 105 Ark. 194 (Ark. 1912) (indignities require specific acts and language; beyond mere unfriendliness)