Colquitt v. Colquitt
2013 Ark. App. 733
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Robert and Linda Colquitt married in 1989, separated in 2011, and divorce was granted after a hearing on September 12, 2012; property division was taken under advisement and a final decree entered April 17, 2013.
- The marital estate included four houses held as tenants by the entirety (one marital residence and three rental houses), IRAs, and personal property; parties disputed values and neither submitted agreed valuations while the case was under advisement.
- The trial court found the equities favored an unequal property division, awarding Linda three of the four houses (including the marital home at 623 West Monroe) and Robert one rental, divided IRAs and personal property, and denied spousal support.
- Trial findings emphasized factors in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315: marriage length (23 years), ages (Linda 68; Robert 59), present and future income disparities, retirement plans, inheritance prospects, and each party’s contributions.
- Robert appealed, arguing the unequal real-property division was clearly erroneous because values were uncertain and that awarding the marital home unequally was legally erroneous under pre-1997-tenancy-by-entirety rules.
- The Court of Appeals declined to address the tenancy-by-entirety statutory argument as not preserved, reviewed the property division de novo but affirmed the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and affirmed the unequal division.
Issues
| Issue | Colquitt (Appellant) Argument | Colquitt (Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s unequal division of marital real property was clearly erroneous given lack of reliable property valuations | Unequal split was inappropriate because the court acknowledged it had no reliable values for the houses and thus could not equitably depart from equal division | Trial court considered statutory factors (ages, incomes, retirement prospects, contributions, inheritance, debts, rental income) and reasonably relied on testimony and exhibits despite valuation disputes | Affirmed: appellate court found sufficient evidence and no clear error in the trial court’s ten findings supporting an unequal division favoring Linda |
| Whether awarding the marital home unequally violated tenants-by-entirety law because the home was acquired before the 1997 statute authorizing unequal division | Appellant argued the court erred as Cole v. Cole precludes applying the post-1997 statutory authority to property acquired earlier | Appellee and trial court did not address this issue below; trial court made no ruling on the statutory-timing argument | Not addressed on the merits: issue waived for appeal because not raised/preserved below; appellate review refused |
| Whether spousal support should have been awarded given the unequal property division | Appellant implies unequal property division insufficient to justify denying support | Trial court denied spousal support based on the unequal property award and the factors considered | Affirmed: denial of spousal support upheld as consistent with trial court’s equitable property allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Cole, 53 Ark. App. 140, 920 S.W.2d 32 (1996) (trial court cannot apply post-1997 statutory authority to deprive a spouse of tenancy-by-entirety interest in property acquired before the statute)
- Grantham v. Lucas, 385 S.W.3d 337 (Ark. App. 2011) (standard of review: trial court findings in property division affirmed unless clearly erroneous)
- Carroll v. Carroll, 384 S.W.3d 50 (Ark. App. 2011) (deference to trial court on witness credibility and weight of evidence in marital property divisions)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 250 S.W.3d 232 (Ark. 2007) (issues must be raised at earliest opportunity in trial court to be preserved for appeal)
- Keathley v. Keathley, 61 S.W.3d 219 (Ark. App. 2001) (appellant cannot complain on appeal about an error to which he consented or acquiesced)