Davis v. Davis
2016 Ark. 64
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Don and Cheryl Davis married in 1995; Cheryl filed for divorce in July 2012 and Don counterclaimed. The parties disputed division of marital property, including a Eureka Springs home and business, a gun collection, and personal property.
- At a June 2013 hearing the parties litigated property division; the circuit court issued a letter opinion in December 2013 inviting the parties 30 days to negotiate a settlement before a scheduled status review.
- The court entered a February 3, 2014 divorce decree ordering that all marital property be sold at public auction (unless otherwise specified) with proceeds applied to liens and debts and the remainder divided equally; personal property the parties could not agree on was to be inventoried and sold.
- The decree expressly found no marital equity in the Eureka Springs home or business, found the gun collection marital, and denied dissipation and attorney’s-fee relief; neither party was awarded fees.
- Don filed a timely motion for reconsideration/clarification within ten days; the court denied it on February 26, 2014, and Don filed a notice of appeal on March 20, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Don) | Defendant's Argument (Cheryl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of the divorce decree containing language allowing parties to agree on property division or sale details | Decree is final and appealable because it resolves all issues and provides an enforceable judicial fallback if parties fail to agree | Decree is nonfinal because its operation is conditioned on parties’ future actions and agreements | Held: Decree is final and appealable; allowing parties time to agree does not defeat finality when an enforceable remedy is provided if no agreement is reached |
| Timeliness of appeal / effect of postjudgment motion | Motion for reconsideration and clarification (filed within 10 days) extended the time to appeal under Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4(b)(1) because it sought additional findings and asked to alter the judgment | Cheryl argued the motion was not one of the enumerated motions and thus did not extend the appeal period | Held: Don’s motion qualified under Rule 4(b)(1), was timely, and tolled the appeal period until denial; the March 20 notice of appeal was timely |
| Characterization of specific assets (Eureka Springs home & business; gun collection) | Don challenged the court’s findings (e.g., marital equity, dissipation) and sought unequal division based on alleged dissipation | Cheryl maintained no marital equity in Eureka Springs assets and opposed unequal division; she supported treating the gun collection as marital | Held: The decree found no marital equity in the Eureka Springs home/business, found the gun collection marital, and rejected Cheryl-dissipation claims; these factual/merits issues remain for the court of appeals to address on remand |
| Award of unequal property division and attorney’s fees | Don sought unequal division (arguing dissipation) and an award of attorney’s fees | Cheryl sought equal division and opposed fees | Held: Trial court denied unequal division and attorney’s fees; the Supreme Court remanded to the court of appeals to decide the merits of these claims (after answering the certified question on finality) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 2011 Ark. 259 (holding allowance for a period to sell or seek commissioner’s sale did not preclude appellate review)
- Chambers v. Manning, 315 Ark. 369 (1993) (an order that gives parties time to effectuate a decree but provides an enforceable judicial remedy is final)
- Fisher v. Chavers, 351 Ark. 318 (finality to invoke appellate jurisdiction is jurisdictional and aims to avoid piecemeal litigation)
- Kilgore v. Viner, 293 Ark. 187 (final judgment must put the court’s directive into execution to end litigation or a separable part of it)