Horton v. Horton
2011 Ark. App. 361
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Horton and Mrs. Horton separated in May 2007 after 33 years of marriage; Mrs. Horton filed for divorce October 14, 2008; divorce hearing held February 4, 2009; Mrs. Horton’s health and finances are precarious (stroke, living in assisted living, relies on Social Security); Mr. Horton’s gambling and use of marital funds are at issue; home Mrs. Horton owned before marriage was sold and proceeds allocated; court considered whether Mrs. Horton’s prior home was marital property and how retirement and other accounts should be divided; 2008 tax liability and capital gains from the home sale were allocated to Mr. Horton; the decree provided an unequal division favoring Mrs. Horton due to her health and Mr. Horton’s financial conduct; Mr. Horton sought relief via motions for new trial and reconsideration, which were denied or deemed denied, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new-trial denial deprived Horton of a fair trial | Horton claims he was precluded from presenting his case | Horton had opportunities to present evidence and the court limited issues | No reversible error; not a material fair-trial impairment |
| Whether Mrs. Horton’s pre-marital home was marital property | Horton contends transfer to a trust and mortgage payments with marital funds made it marital property | Court may award unequal division and rely on factors; pre-marital property can be treated as non-marital | Not clearly erroneous to treat as separate property with possible unequal division anyway |
| Whether Horton should bear all 2008 tax liability (including capital gains from the home sale) | Tax liability should not be assigned entirely to Horton because gains were from premarital home | Court has authority to assign tax liability based on disparities and equities | Affirmed; allocation based on income disparity and equities; not arbitrary |
| Whether the time delay between hearings and decree invalidated the division due to changed circumstances | Horton’s finances worsened over time, warranting reconsideration | Not reversible; court accounted for market fluctuations and disparities in retirement/bank accounts |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. Day, 663 S.W.2d 719 (Ark. 1984) (history of Act 705 of 1979 and division principles)
- Gilliam v. Gilliam, 374 S.W.3d 108 (Ark. App. 2010) (examples of unequal division authority and pre/post-marital considerations)
- Box v. Box, ? (Ark. 1997) (pre-marital property not automatically marital by debt payment)
- Stam... (example), 916 S.W.2d 120 (1996) (statutory factors for equitable division)
- LaFont v. Mixon, 374 S.W.3d 668 (Ark. 2010) (unequal division and consideration of factors)