Jez v. Jez
2016 Ark. App. 594
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- James “Jimmy” Jez and Angel Jez married in 1995, had one child (born 2000), and separated in July 2014; Angel filed for divorce in August 2014.
- The Pulaski County Circuit Court entered a divorce decree on October 13, 2015 awarding Angel custody, child support, $200/month alimony, and one-half of Jimmy’s interest in the Jez Family Limited Partnership.
- Jimmy appealed, arguing (1) his partnership interest was a nonmarital gift and should not be divided, (2) the court miscalculated his income for child support, and (3) the alimony award was an abuse of discretion.
- The partnership agreement was created in May 1996 during the marriage; Jimmy made an initial $11,132.21 contribution in exchange for a 33% interest and marital funds were used to pay partnership taxes during the marriage.
- At the final hearing the parties stipulated to Jimmy’s net income of $2,113.50/month and a biweekly child-support obligation of $316; the decree mistakenly referenced a different “take-home” figure but used the stipulated support amount.
Issues
| Issue | Jez's Argument | Angel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jimmy’s partnership interest was marital property or a nonmarital gift | Interest was a gift to Jimmy (separate property) and should be returned | Interest was marital: acquired/maintained with marital funds and during marriage | Court held interest was marital property and divided equally; Jimmy failed to prove a gift |
| Whether trial court erred in calculating income for child support | Court miscalculated monthly take-home pay ($2,692.31) | Support award was based on parties’ stipulation to $2,113.50 net and $316 biweekly | Court affirmed: relied on parties’ stipulation; $316 biweekly affirmed |
| Whether alimony award was an abuse of discretion | No economic imbalance; Angel better off when child support considered; undue debt allocation | Court considered needs, earning capacity, debts, marriage length, and Angel’s reduced hours/medical issues | Court upheld $200/month alimony as within trial court’s discretion |
| Whether trial court improperly punished Jez (adultery) via alimony | Argues alimony is punitive for adultery | Court maintained fault not considered; alimony based on financial factors | Court rejected punitive- award was not punishment and considered proper factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Myrick v. Myrick, 339 Ark. 1, 2 S.W.3d 60 (1999) (deference to trial court on credibility and factual findings in family-law matters)
- Kuchmas v. Kuchmas, 368 Ark. 43, 243 S.W.3d 270 (2006) (alimony is within trial court’s sound discretion; primary consideration is spouse’s need and other’s ability to pay)