Doss v. Doss
561 S.W.3d 348
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Rick and Jennifer Doss married in 2009; Rick filed for divorce in 2013; final separation occurred in September 2015 and the decree was entered September 6, 2017.
- Two hearings occurred (Nov. 30 and Dec. 18, 2016); appeal timely filed by Rick challenging the property/debt division.
- Rick claimed the circuit court failed to make required statutory findings for an unequal division and that the record did not support an unequal division (alleged > $80,000 inequity).
- The circuit court characterized assets (marital vs. nonmarital), found obfuscation of Rick’s assets, and examined alimony and ability to pay before dividing property and debt.
- Key dispositions: Jennifer received her marital share of the 401(k), half of a tax refund, half of marital foreign currency (less family debts), and Green Acres storage property (with its debt); Rick received premarital property and its debt (court noted $77,000 paydown during marriage).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court made required express findings to justify unequal division of marital property | Doss: court failed to state statutory reasons and basis for unequal division | State (court record): court explained its basis—considered statute, alimony, and obfuscation of Rick’s assets—reasons recited in order | Affirmed: court articulated reasons; statutory requirement satisfied |
| Whether the record supports the unequal division and allocation of debts | Doss: record lacks evidentiary support; division results in inequity > $80,000 | Court: evaluated characterization, testimony, asset tracing, needs of Jennifer, Rick’s unclear ability to pay | Affirmed: findings not clearly erroneous; division not arbitrary or groundless |
| Whether marital debt must be divided equally | Doss: implied challenge to allocation | Court/Defendant: debt allocation can reflect relative ability to pay; statutory equal-division presumption does not apply to debts | Affirmed: court may allocate debts based on ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. Haunert, 101 Ark. App. 93, 270 S.W.3d 339 (standard of review in domestic-relations appeals)
- Skokos v. Skokos, 344 Ark. 420, 40 S.W.3d 768 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Conlee v. Conlee, 370 Ark. 89, 257 S.W.3d 543 (property-division review and statutory framework)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 2016 Ark. App. 256, 492 S.W.3d 534 (marital contribution to nonmarital debt considered in balancing equities)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 97 Ark. App. 96, 244 S.W.3d 712 (debts allocated by relative ability to pay)
- Williams v. Williams, 82 Ark. App. 294, 108 S.W.3d 629 (equal-division presumption does not apply to debt allocation)
- Hernandez v. Hernandez, 371 Ark. 323, 265 S.W.3d 746 (court not required to list each statutory factor verbatim)
- Gentry v. Gentry, 282 Ark. 413, 668 S.W.2d 947 (exceptions to equal distribution depend on specific factual findings)