Kelly v. Kelly
2014 Ark. LEXIS 673
Ark.2014Background
- John Kelly appeals a final divorce decree from the Pulaski County Circuit Court after this court reversed and remanded in Kelly I over TRM stock status.
- On remand the circuit court awarded all TRM stock to Christy as an unequal distribution under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315(a)(1).
- The court also addressed a deficiency from the sale of the marital home and ordered both parties to pay sums owed within 30 days, plus alimony issues.
- Christy’s father sought intervention, which the circuit court denied; John challenged the equity of the TRM stock award and the deficiency/alimony rulings.
- The court denied a request to hear new evidence on unequal distribution after remand, and allowed Christy to deposit alimony owed into the court registry.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the direct appeal and found Snowden’s cross-appeal moot; dissents argued the distribution analysis was flawed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case preclusion | Kelly argued the law-of-the-case barredChristy’s unequal-distribution claim. | Christy contends law-of-the-case did not bar post-remand unequal distribution when stock became marital. | Christy not barred; law-of-the-case did not preclude unequal distribution post-remand. |
| Unequal distribution of TRM stock | John argues circuit court erred by not punting current-value testimony and by lacking explicit findings. | Christy argues record supports unequal distribution under § 9-12-315 and needs no exact factor-by-factor recital. | Court affirmatively upheld unequal distribution of TRM stock to Christy. |
| Marital-home deficiency | John asserts remand did not authorize reallocation of the deficiency and that ability to pay should be considered. | Christy contends deficiency division was within remand authority and that ability-to-pay need not be expressly considered. | Court held mandate allowed addressing the deficiency; no merit to John’s challenge. |
| Alimony deposited into registry | John claims depositing alimony funds into registry was unfair and inconsistent with setoff history. | Christy argues court acted within discretion and cited authority; deposit preserves funds pending further order. | Court affirmed registry deposit as within trial court discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landers v. Jameson, 355 Ark. 163 (2003) (law-of-the-case applicability to remand proceedings)
- Kelly v. Kelly (I), 2011 Ark. 259 (2011) (stock status as marital property; remand for property division)
- Hernandez v. Hernandez, 371 Ark. 323 (2007) (standard of review for property division; de novo with clear-error limits)
- Jones v. Jones, 2014 Ark. 96 (2014) (broad discretion in property division; not require mathematical precision)
- Box v. Box, 312 Ark. 550 (1993) (equitable division framework; non-mathematical precision)
- Pinkston v. Pinkston, 278 Ark. 233 (1983) (existence of appellate standard for reviewing property division)
- Farrell v. Farrell, 365 Ark. 465 (2006) (alimony/threshold considerations in property matters)
- Gentry v. Gentry, 282 Ark. 413 (1984) (factors guiding equitable division and reviewing court's findings)