575 S.W.3d 636
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Married lawyers for 16 years with three children; moved to Northwest Arkansas; both practiced law (Grimsley at Mitchell Williams; Drewyor solo). Divorce decree entered Feb. 2, 2018.
- Temporary agreement provided alternate-week physical custody; final decree awarded joint custody with the same equal-time schedule and right-of-first-refusal provisions; Grimsley ordered to pay monthly child support of $1,349 and both parties to contribute 25% of any additional income/bonuses per Administrative Order No. 10.
- Court awarded Drewyor permanent alimony of $3,787/month after finding a monthly need and deducted his historical earnings and child support; court divided marital property and treated Grimsley’s Mitchell Williams partnership interest as marital (value ~$50,500, half awarded to Drewyor).
- Grimsley inherited approximately $5M in restricted bank stock, an investment account, and a lot (not liquidated) after the decree; Drewyor sought 25% ($1.25M) as lump-sum child support under paragraph 14 and Ford v. Ford.
- Trial court initially denied contempt (citing lack of liquidation), then on reconsideration ordered Grimsley to pay $1.25M within 30 days; Grimsley appealed custody, alimony, property division, debt allocation, and the lump-sum child-support order.
Issues
| Issue | Grimsley’s Argument | Drewyor’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Award of joint custody | Court should award primary custody to Grimsley because parties are contentious and shared decisions cause conflict | Joint custody appropriate; parties previously raised children as a team and shared responsibilities | Joint custody affirmed; no clear error in best-interest finding |
| Permanent alimony (award and amount) | Drewyor can work and has equal earning capacity; permanent alimony unjustified and should be rehabilitative or none | Drewyor needs support; evidentiary showing of monthly need supports permanent award | Reversed: permanent alimony award abused discretion given equal earning capacities and lack of evidence he cannot earn more |
| Mitchell Williams partnership interest | Interest should be treated as nonmarital because Grimsley paid off loan with a $300,000 gift from her father | Interest acquired during marriage is marital property; paying loan with nonmarital funds did not convert asset to nonmarital | Affirmed: partnership interest is marital and division to Drewyor is proper |
| Lump-sum child support (25% of $5M inheritance) | Inheritance not "income" under Admin. Order No. 10 because assets were not liquidated; award exceeds children’s needs and may be disguised alimony | Paragraph 14 and Ford require 25% of additional income/bonuses; inheritance qualifies and is payable regardless of liquidity | Reversed: inheritance (restricted stock, investment account, lot) not income where not liquidated; court abused discretion and failed to make findings on children’s needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485 (Ark. 2002) (one-time payments/inheritances can be income under support guidelines)
- Dare v. Frost, 540 S.W.3d 281 (Ark. 2018) (unrealized investment growth not includable as income until realized)
- White v. White, 236 S.W.3d 540 (Ark. App. 2006) (capital gains not income for support when not realized; distinguishes Ford)
- McWhorter v. McWhorter, 58 S.W.3d 840 (Ark. 2001) (definitions of income under Administrative Order No. 10 are intentionally broad)