Kelly v. Kelly
2016 Ark. 72
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Owen and Mandy Kelly divorced in April 2014 after separating in June 2013; they have two minor children (born 1999 and 2002).
- The circuit court awarded Mandy primary custody and ordered Owen to pay $7,528/month child support starting April 1, 2014, and found Mandy’s monthly needs to be $16,659.
- The court set alimony at $9,131/month (monthly need minus current child support) and specified automatic escalations: when child-support drops to $5,366/month alimony increases to $11,293, and when no child-support obligation remains alimony would be $16,659/month.
- The decree ordered the former marital residence sold (private listing until July 15, 2014; if unsold then public auction) with net proceeds divided equally — a disposition the court characterized as final rather than requiring further judicial action.
- Owen timely appealed the divorce decree; the court of appeals dismissed the appeal as nonfinal because of the contemplated sale of the residence. Owen sought rehearing and review; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the divorce decree was a final, appealable order | Kelly argued the decree was final and appealable | State/court of appeals had treated the order as nonfinal due to contemplated sale | The Supreme Court held the decree was final and appealable because the court made a final disposition of the marital home and did not require further judicial action |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by ordering alimony that automatically escalates as child-support obligations end | Owen argued the automatic escalations were an abuse of discretion (improper method for alimony adjustments) | Mandy relied on the decree’s terms tying alimony to demonstrated monthly need less child support | The Court declined to decide the merits of this issue on review and remanded to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Davis v. Davis |
| Proper procedural handling of appeal after decree with contingent sale provision | Owen maintained timely appeal should proceed | Court of appeals treated contingent sale language as rendering decree nonfinal | Supreme Court vacated court of appeals decision and remanded for reconsideration (finding decree final) |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 2016 Ark. 64 (Ark. 2016) (adopted and incorporated reasoning regarding finality of divorce decrees that contemplate property disposition)