Moody v. Moody
2017 Ark. App. 582
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Angela Moody and Edward Moody divorced by decree (Jan. 8, 2015) that incorporated a prior property- settlement agreement and temporary orders allocating expenses while Angela remained in the marital home.
- Post-decree contempt and property disputes arose over real-estate taxes, a set of Boulenger stainless flatware, two Railroad Baron side tables, two cast-stone lion statues, Lenox china place settings, a Kubota tractor, and various contempt allegations (parental neglect; allegedly harassing filings).
- Temporary orders (Nov. 18, 2011, and June 11, 2013) had required Angela to pay real-property taxes from Jan. 2013 until further order and tied a $27,500 monthly payment to coverage of household expenses while she lived in the home; the final decree changed support amounts and set a deadline to vacate the residence.
- At the contempt hearing, witnesses (appellee’s counsel and interior designer) testified they saw the flatware in a closet before Angela vacated but it was gone afterward; appellant disputed existence of the flatware and claimed some items (lions, tractor, rug) per earlier unwritten agreements or her possession.
- The circuit court ordered Angela to reimburse Edward for one-half the flatware value or return one-half if located, required return of two Lenox place settings, split the lion statues (one each), awarded the Kubota tractor to Edward, and held Angela responsible for 2014 real-estate taxes and one month of 2015 taxes. Angela appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moody) | Defendant's Argument (Edward) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real-estate taxes | Decree does not make her liable for taxes on home Edward received | Prior orders and decree tied increased support to payment of home expenses; she agreed to pay taxes while residing there | Affirmed: Angela liable for 2014 taxes and Jan 2015 month based on incorporated temporary orders and parties' agreement |
| Boulenger flatware | Flatware never existed; court should not credit opposing witnesses or valuation | Witnesses saw flatware pre-vacatur; missing thereafter; seek one-half value or return | Affirmed: court credited neutral witness and ordered reimbursement or return of one-half |
| Lion statues | Court erred splitting statues; they were handled by agreement | Statues not listed; equitable division appropriate | Affirmed: court split statues one each as equitable division |
| Kubota tractor | Tractor was marital property purchased on joint card; she should receive value or full award | Edward claimed nonmarital funds/inheritance purchase | Reversed for remand: record supports tractor is marital and appellant gave evidence of purchase/value; appellee failed to prove nonmarital ownership |
| Contempt for parental-neglect allegations | Court erred by dismissing without testimony | No testimony or evidence presented at hearing | Affirmed: no evidence presented below, so dismissal not erroneous |
| Contempt for "harassing and annoying" filings | Appellant argued filings were frivolous and contemptuous | Edward denied willful disobedience; no evidence of willful violation | Affirmed: no evidence of willful disobedience and appellant failed to develop record |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 759 S.W.2d 42 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988) (independent property-settlement agreement incorporated in decree cannot be later modified by court)
- Skokos v. Skokos, 40 S.W.3d 768 (Ark. 2001) (trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings in domestic cases are given deference)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 918 S.W.2d 197 (Ark. Ct. App. 1996) (when a contract is unambiguous, its construction is a question of law)
- Balcom v. Crain, 496 S.W.3d 405 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (contempt requires disobedience of valid court order and willfulness)