McCormick v. McCormick, 416 S.W.3d 770

Denise McCormick and Albert McCormick began living together in 2002 and married in January 2006.
They commingled funds beginning in 2004; Fulton County property purchased in 2006 with a Glencoe property trade.
Title to the Fulton County property was taken solely in Albert's name at Denise's insistence due to IRS concerns.
The trial court treated Fulton County as marital property, awarded Albert the initial $90,000 credit, and split remaining proceeds.
Several bank accounts, retirement accounts, and CDs were titled solely in Albert's name, with some claimed to be marital.
The court divided two time-share properties to each party and awarded various vehicles; Denise admitted selling marital property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $90,000 credit to Albert was correct	Denise argues the division should not favor Albert 90k off top.	Albert contends the credit reflects the Glencoe transaction and premarital repayment to Denise.	Affirmed; court properly credited Albert and divided remaining proceeds.
Whether time-share properties were valued and divided properly	Denise asserts unequal or unverified values meant unequal division.	Albert argues properties are of approximately equal value and fairly split.	Affirmed; evidence supported approximate equal value and proper distribution.
Whether accounts titled in Albert were unfairly awarded to him	Denise contends funds came from both parties and should be split.	Albert maintains tracing was insufficient and his accounts were appropriately awarded.	Affirmed; court properly credited Albert with the accounts.
Whether increase in investments during marriage was properly accounted for	Denise contends growth from marital funds should be shared.	Albert notes lack of timely tracing or evidence of joint contribution to increases.	Affirmed; court did not abuse discretion in not apportioning increase.
Whether Denise's conduct (unclean hands) justified unequal division	Denise challenges the court's reliance on unclean hands to justify unequal division.	Albert argues Denise's concealment and post-separation actions warrant unequal division.	Affirmed; unclean hands supported an unequal division and credibility finding.

Box v. Box, 312 Ark. 550 (1993) (guides equitable distribution factors)
Williford v. Williford, 280 Ark. 71 (1983) (statutory framework for property division)
Bamburg v. Bamburg, 386 S.W.3d 31 (2011 Ark.App.) (unequal divisions allowed with explained reasons)
Baxley v. Baxley, 167 S.W.3d 158 (2004) (emphasizes equitable distribution framework)
Gilliam v. Gilliam, 374 S.W.3d 108 (2010 Ark. App.) (requires explanation for unequal division)
Canady v. Canady, 721 S.W.2d 650 (1986) (role of tracing and community/separate property)
Cate v. Cate, 812 S.W.2d 697 (1991) (nonmarital property and shared contributions)
Layman v. Layman, 731 S.W.2d 771 (1987) (active appreciation doctrine for nonmarital assets)
Farrell v. Farrell, 231 S.W.3d 619 (2006) (continues active appreciation framework)
Stover v. Stover, 696 S.W.2d 750 (1985) (fault-based considerations in division)
Keathley v. Keathley, 61 S.W.3d 219 (2001) (support for unequal division based on credibility)
Forsgren v. Forsgren, 630 S.W.2d 64 (1982) (equitable distribution principles)
Mitchell v. Powell, 109 S.W.2d 155 (1987) (market values and real property considerations)
Skokos v. Skokos, 40 S.W.3d 768 (2001) (property valuation at decree date)
Boggs v. Boggs, 761 S.W.2d 956 (1988) (commingling and marital property determination)
Potter v. Potter, 655 S.W.2d 382 (1983) (tenancy in common concept in mixed funds properties)