Jason D. Rowan v. Mary Beth Hunter Rowan
2022 Ark. App. 143
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Parties divorced in 2013; a ten-page property-settlement agreement (PSA) prepared by Mary Beth was attached to the decree.
- PSA: Jason would refinance and obtain a $165,645.01 mortgage, Mary Beth waived $12,355 equity, contributed escrow to closing, quitclaimed title after refinance; PSA set a "current appraisal value" of $178,000 (mortgage + equity).
- PSA provision: if Jason sells while Mary Beth is living, the parties "will divide 50/50 any profit that exceeds the current appraisal value—$178,000—minus any upgrades."
- Jason refinanced, obtained title, and sold the house in 2019 for $425,000; the title company paid Mary Beth $45,244.32 at closing.
- Mary Beth moved for contempt alleging Jason failed to pay her half of the equity over $178,000. The trial court found Jason not in contempt but calculated the sale differently, credited Mary Beth's prior payment, and ordered Jason to pay her an additional $77,234.35 plus interest. Jason appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mary Beth) | Defendant's Argument (Jason) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper calculation under PSA ("profit" vs "proceeds") | "Profit" means sales price less mortgage and costs; $178,000 includes mortgage so mortgage must be deducted before 50/50 split | Title company paid according to PSA; Mary Beth already received her half; court improperly used "proceeds" and effectively paid Jason twice for mortgage | Court construed PSA as crediting $178,000 (which includes mortgage) to Jason, then dividing remaining funds; affirmed award of $77,234.35 plus interest |
| Awarding money after finding no willful contempt | Mary Beth sought contempt and also asked enforcement of PSA (equal share) | If no willful contempt, no damages should be awarded; award inconsistent with contempt finding | Court can deny contempt yet still enforce/award amounts under the PSA; affirmed monetary award |
Key Cases Cited
- Darcey v. Matthews, 537 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. App. 2017) (standard of review in domestic-relations cases)
- Collins v. Collins, 471 S.W.3d 665 (Ark. App. 2015) (PSA incorporated into decree cannot be modified by court)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (contract interpretation: plain and ordinary meaning; read agreement as whole)
- Parker v. Parker, 591 S.W.3d 818 (Ark. App. 2019) (court lacks authority to modify independent contract in decree)
- Jewell v. Fletcher, 377 S.W.3d 176 (Ark. 2010) (appellate courts may refuse arguments lacking legal authority)