Dew v. Dew, 2012 Ark. App. 122

Suzanne and Terry Dew, married in 1995, separated in 2008, have two children, and are veterinarians with substantial real property and business interests.
Trial court divorce decree (2010) awarded Terry general indignities, alimony of $8,000/mo for 48 months, child support, and exclusive ownership of Terry’s business entities; Suzanne received custody by Terry with agreement; and each was to bear debts tied to properties awarded.
Marital property distributed: Doxa Retreat to Suzanne; Dew Residence and Dew Farm (tenants in common) to Terry; other real properties distributed; various accounts/assets apportioned between the parties.
Suzanne challenged the property division, contending unequal distribution, valuation disputes (including business going-concern value vs. asset-by-asset value), and erroneous treatment of the clinic lease option and pre-1997 alimony provisions.
The court valued and distributed intangible and business assets, including Azzore entities, clinic lease option, OncoPet, and tax-related items, and ordered an adjustment payment to equalize assets.
Terry cross-appealed arguing alimony amount was excessive given Suzanne’s veterinary license; trial court’s discretion on alimony reviewed de novo with emphasis on need and ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether property division was equitable	Suzanne argues remaining assets were not equally divided and seeks remand for full valuation.	Terry contends trial court achieved overall fair division; any discrepancies were not prejudicial.	Division not clearly erroneous; deference to trial court; overall balance deemed equitable.
Whether the clinic lease option is a divisible marital asset	Suzanne asserts the option to purchase the leased clinic real estate is marital property.	Terry argues the option is contingent and not subject to division; no contemporaneous value shown.	Court erred in treating it as non-marital, but no prejudice since no value shown at divorce.
Whether the Dew Residence acquired before 1997 falls under pre-1997 alimony/property rules	Suzanne contends pre-1997 law limits disposition of the residence; trial court erred.	Terry argues waiver/consent and trial strategy; issue raised late via posttrial motion.	Argument waived due to failure to raise at trial; no abuse of discretion in denying posttrial challenge.
Whether the alimony award is reasonable	Suzanne should receive more alimony given need and lack of earnings; cross-appeal challenges amount.	Terry asserts Suzanne can work as a veterinarian; alimony should reflect need and ability to pay.	Alimony upheld given Suzanne's lack of recent employment and need; trial court did not clearly err.

Skokos v. Skokos, 332 Ark. 520 (Ark. 1998) (approve fair market value standard for business valuation in divorce)
Adametz v. Adametz, 85 Ark.App. 401 (Ark. App. 2004) (recognize fair market value approach for businesses)
Cole v. Cole, 82 Ark.App. 47 (Ark. App. 2003) (use of fair market value for business valuation)
Crismon v. Crismon, 72 Ark.App. 116 (Ark. App. 2000) (valuation of marital assets including business components)
Turnbough v. Mammoth Spring Sch. Dist. No. 2, 349 Ark. 341 (Ark. 2002) (statutory interpretation in reviewing trial court decisions)
Gilliam v. Gilliam, 2010 Ark.App. 137 (Ark. App. 2010) (broad appellate review of property division; deference to trial court)
Horton v. Horton, 2011 Ark.App. 361 (Ark. App. 2011) (preserve issues raised on appeal and de novo review of legal questions)
Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333 (Ark. 2008) (predecessor and post-change interpretations of marital residence disposition)
Creson v. Creson, 53 Ark.App. 41 (Ark. App. 1996) (historical context for property division and tenancy)
Neel v. Citizens First State Bank of Arkadelphia, 28 Ark.App. 116 (Ark. App. 1989) (permissible post-trial issues and consent-based waivers)
Winn v. Winn Enters., Ltd. P’ship, 100 Ark.App. 134 (Ark. App. 2007) (going-concern value considerations in asset division)