506 S.W.3d 899
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jeannie Sherman and Raymond Boeckmann divorced after lengthy, acrimonious litigation; four family corporations were undisputedly marital property: B & L Properties, Inc.; L & K Properties, Inc.; Boeckmann and Sons, Inc.; and Logan Centers, Inc.
- Pre‑litigation ownership: Boeckmann owned 100% of Sons Inc.; Sherman owned 100% of Logan Center; both owned 50% of B&L and L&K.
- After Sherman filed for divorce, the court entered a mutual restraining order limiting dispositions of marital/corporate assets and restored Boeckmann’s name on accounts; parties could monitor but not withdraw from certain accounts.
- Trial produced contested valuation evidence; Sherman’s expert offered a ~ $1.2M liquidation valuation for Logan Center but lacked full contract/income data; Boeckmann’s expert (excluded as discovery sanction) had valued Logan much higher.
- The circuit court initially ordered corporate stock sold, then in the final decree awarded each party one‑half of the stock in each corporation and equalized cash withdrawals (offsets to Boeckmann).
- Sherman appealed, arguing (1) lack of specific valuation findings, (2) error in awarding one‑half of each corporation’s stock to each party, and (3) failure to obtain/appoint an independent valuation expert. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Sherman’s Argument | Boeckmann’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by failing to make specific findings as to the value of each corporation | Court should have made/findings and placed values (especially Logan Center) | Evidence did not support a reliable valuation; court was within discretion | No error — valuation is fact question; parties bear burden to produce competent evidence; court need not value when it divides stock equally |
| Whether court erred by awarding each party one‑half of the stock in each corporation | Court lacked statutory authority to order sale; if sale not proper, award Sherman all stock with offsets | Court may designate specific stock shares to each party; equal division appropriate given hostility | No error — Ark. Code provides option to designate specific stock percentages; equal division presumptively fair and permissible |
| Whether court should have appointed an independent expert to value Logan and other corporations | Court was required to obtain/appoint an expert because evidence on Logan’s value was inadequate | Appointment is discretionary; courts rarely call witnesses and need not supplant parties’ presentation | No abuse of discretion — court not required to appoint an expert under Ark. R. Evid. 706; decision lies with trial court |
| Whether the court could order sale of stock as remedy | Sherman argued no statutory authority to order sale of stock | Boeckmann urged equal division rather than sale | Court ultimately awarded equal shares; Hodges holds statute does not authorize compulsory sale as sole remedy; equal division was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Moore, 486 S.W.3d 766 (Ark. 2016) (standard of review for divorce property division; appellate de novo review with deference to trial court credibility and factual findings)
- Hodges v. Hodges, 770 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. App. 1989) (statute permits designating specific stock percentages or awarding stock to one party with a cash/property offset; does not mandate sale)
- Wilson v. Kemp, 644 S.W.2d 306 (Ark. App. 1982) (trial court has discretion to appoint experts; calling witnesses by the court is discretionary and uncommon)