Duncan v. Duncan, 383 S.W.3d 833

Appellee Cheryl Duncan sought to enforce a property-settlement agreement dividing retirement assets following divorce; the agreement provided half-splits and premarital deductions, with a QDRO later implementing the division.
The QDRO directed appellee to receive 38.551% of the account balance as of May 30, 2007, representing her one-half share after premarital deduction, with the option of a single-sum distribution.
Haynes calculated appellee’s share as $319,097.54 as of May 30, 2007 and segregated it into a separate account; market fluctuations later affected value.
Appellant Mark Duncan signed a distribution form in April 2008 but appellee refused the distribution at that time, disputing the amount.
The circuit court found the parties’ agreement unambiguous, valued appellee’s share at $319,097.81 as of May 30, 2007, and awarded appellee $115,936.81 for the shortfall after later market losses, which the Arkansas Supreme Court later reversed.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the losses from market fluctuation after segregation could not be charged to appellant and that appellee’s delay alone did not render her noncollectible on the agreed amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellee’s share was correctly valued as of May 30, 2007.	Duncan argued the value was $319,097.81.	Duncan contended the QDRO and agreement fixed the value at the May 2007 amount.	Yes; the court held the lower court erred in awarding a judgment for market-loss delta.
Whether market fluctuation after segregation is borne by appellant.	Appellee’s post-segregation losses should not be charged to appellant.	Appellee's decision not to transfer did not affect apportionment.	Yes; losses after segregation could not justify a judgment against appellant.
Whether appellee’s delay in distributing her share affected liability.	Delay did not waive appellee’s rights or create liability against appellant.	Delay could reduce or nullify recovery on the sum due.	Yes; delay did not convert appellee’s property into appellant’s liability.

Gentry v. Gentry, 327 Ark. 266 (1997) (property-settlement agreements are binding and final contracts)
Brewer v. Brewer, 239 Ark. 614 (1965) (finality of property settlements)
Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 375 Ark. 446 (2009) (clear error standard for equity findings)
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 841 So.2d 695 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003) (restrictions on post-judgment recovery of gains/losses)
Allen v. Allen, 118 N.C.App. 455 (1995) (gains/losses of retirement accounts after separation)
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 367 Ark. 468 (2006) (timeliness of motions and court jurisdiction on reconsideration)
Shorter v. Shorter, 851 N.E.2d 378 (2006) (allocation of market-value losses between parties)
Powell v. Lane, 375 Ark. 178 (2008) (review as if case filed in Supreme Court)