Moore v. Moore
2016 Ark. 105
| Ark. | 2016Background
- John David Moore (husband) and Nancy Moore (wife) married in 2007; Nancy filed for divorce in 2012.
- David owned a pre-marriage company, Moore U.S. Mail Contractor, Inc.; the circuit court found the company nonmarital but classified the appreciation during the marriage ($556,365.05) as marital and awarded Nancy one-half.
- The circuit court awarded Nancy $5,000/month alimony until age 65, citing her medical problems (post‑brain‑tumor surgery) and financial need, and David’s ability to pay.
- The court of appeals dismissed David’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable order because the decree left one tract of real estate subject to future agreement or sale.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court held the decree final and, on the merits, reversed the property‑division ruling (holding growth of David’s pre‑marital business nonmarital absent statutory findings) and remanded for entry of an order consistent with that holding and for reconsideration of alimony in light of the revised property division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (David) | Defendant's Argument (Nancy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of divorce decree | Decree is not final because it contemplates future court action re: a tract of realty | Decree is final and appealable under Davis precedent | Order is final and appealable; court of appeals’ dismissal vacated |
| Classification of business appreciation | Growth of pre‑marriage business is nonmarital under Ark. Code §9‑12‑315(b)(5) and not subject to active‑appreciation exception | Appreciation became marital because of David’s (and Nancy’s) efforts during marriage; should be divided | Reversed: appreciation is nonmarital; Layman active‑appreciation rule conflicts with statute and is overruled; remand for entry awarding growth to David unless statutory findings justify distribution |
| Overruling precedent (Layman line) | Argues statute controls; court should apply plain statutory text | Nancy relied on Layman/Farrell/Brown to support division | Court overruled Layman, Farrell, and Brown, returning to plain statutory language (majority). Two justices dissented from overruling on stare‑decisis grounds |
| Alimony award | David contends award excessive and should be reconsidered if property division reduces Nancy’s recovery | Nancy points to her medical condition, limited education/work ability, and David’s income to justify $5,000/month | Alimony not an abuse of discretion on record, but because property division and alimony are complementary, remanded to reconsider alimony consistent with new property distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Layman v. Layman, 292 Ark. 539 (Ark. 1987) (created active‑appreciation doctrine treating appreciable increase in separate property as marital when spouse’s efforts attributable to gain)
- Farrell v. Farrell, 365 Ark. 465 (Ark. 2006) (applied Layman active‑appreciation rule to divide stock appreciation)
- Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333 (Ark. 2008) (applied active‑appreciation principles in property division)
- Davis v. Davis, 487 S.W.3d 803 (Ark. 2016) (addressed finality of divorce decrees and guided final‑order analysis)
- Skokos v. Skokos, 344 Ark. 420 (Ark. 2001) (standard of review in divorce cases; findings of circuit court reviewed for clear error)