587 S.W.3d 241
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Althea and Samuel Conley divorced by decree entered December 30, 2016; Althea is a practicing psychiatrist, Samuel stayed home during the marriage and managed rental properties.
- Divorce decree awarded Althea the Ridgewood Drive residence, custody of three minor children, $119/week child support (with income imputed to Samuel), and $2,000/month alimony to Althea for 24 months; Samuel received four duplexes; two family-LLC Little Rock houses and a Quercus Circle home were addressed with sale/assignment provisions if parties could not agree.
- Samuel timely filed a notice of appeal from the divorce decree but failed to timely lodge the record, so that appeal (CV-18-603) was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Althea moved (Oct. 2017) to increase child support and to compel sale/execution of deeds; at the April 11, 2018 hearing the court found Samuel had unreasonably delayed cooperating with sales and ordered sale of Quercus Circle, deeds executed, and credited Althea for mortgage payments she made. Samuel appealed the May 15, 2018 order.
- The appellate court granted Althea’s motion to limit the issues on appeal to those arising from the May 15, 2018 order and dismissed Samuel’s earlier, unperfected appeal; the court then reviewed only whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Althea.
- The trial court had awarded attorney’s fees to Althea for prosecuting the petition to sell real estate; the appellate court affirmed, finding the award was within the court’s discretion given Samuel’s intentional delay and noncooperation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Samuel) | Defendant's Argument (Althea) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of earlier appeal | Record was joined/merged so appeal should proceed | Failure to timely lodge record deprived appellate court of jurisdiction | Earlier appeal dismissed for failure to timely lodge record; no jurisdiction |
| Finality of Dec. 30, 2016 divorce decree | Decree not final because property divisions left contingent (unspecified LLC houses; sale contingent) | Decree was final; allowing time to agree does not defeat finality | Decree is final; allowing agreement or sale if no agreement does not destroy finality |
| Scope of current appeal | Issues from December 2016 decree may be raised in 2018 appeal | Appeal should be limited to issues arising from May 15, 2018 order | Appeal limited to issues arising from May 15, 2018 order (motion to limit granted) |
| Award of attorney’s fees | No findings; Althea didn’t ‘prevail’; she made few alimony payments — fees improper | Samuel intentionally delayed/cooperated refusal forced Althea to seek court relief; fees justified | Fee award affirmed; domestic-relations courts may award fees without full Chrisco analysis and trial court not abusing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Fire Sys. Tech., Inc. v. First Cmty. Bank of Crawford Cty., 464 S.W.3d 125 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (timely lodging of the record is jurisdictional to perfect an appeal)
- Hudson v. Hudson, 555 S.W.3d 902 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (trial court has inherent power to award attorney’s fees in domestic-relations cases and is better placed to evaluate counsel’s services)
- Tiner v. Tiner, 422 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (domestic-relations fee awards need not apply Chrisco factors or particularized findings)
- Vice v. Vice, 505 S.W.3d 719 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (attorney-fee awards in domestic cases reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Davis, 487 S.W.3d 803 (Ark. 2016) (provisions allowing sale or other agreed methods of distribution do not automatically defeat finality of a divorce decree)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 381 S.W.3d 817 (Ark. 2011) (similar rule on finality where decree allows agreed listing/sale with court enforcement if no agreement)
- Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 800 S.W.2d 717 (Ark. 1990) (articulates factors typically used to assess attorney-fee awards)