562 S.W.3d 269
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mike and Bobbie Jo Steeland married in 2004, had one child, and divorced by decree in September 2011; custody awarded to Bobbie Jo, with property/support issues reserved.
- Trial court entered an order on December 19, 2016 resolving child support and distribution of assets and debts.
- Trial court found Mike’s average weekly income for support purposes to be $2,000 and ordered him to pay support, including tuition, bus fees, and health/dental/orthodontic costs.
- Mike is self-employed and operated PSI Rentals, LLC (formed during the marriage); he testified to variable income, prior years of high earnings, business-paid personal expenses, and some unreported items on his AFM.
- The trial court awarded PSI (assets and debts) entirely to Mike, awarded the family home to Bobbie Jo (stating it became marital by use as collateral), and made an uneven division of the marital estate without certain specific findings.
- On appeal Mike challenged (1) the use of gross rather than net income/calculation of support, (2) failure to value PSI, (3) characterization/award of the home as marital, and (4) lack of explanation for unequal distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Mike's Argument | Bobbie Jo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper income basis for child support | Trial court used gross weekly income ($2,000) instead of net; failed to deduct taxes/insurance; AFM showed net $1,247.91 | Mike underreported income; evidence supported $2,000+ weekly (rental/business income, company-paid benefits) | Affirmed — trial court's $2,000/week finding not clearly erroneous; explanation for extra costs awarded was adequate |
| Failure to value PSI Rentals, LLC | Trial court awarded PSI to Mike but made no factual finding as to its value, preventing equitable distribution | PSI is marital; trial court’s award was within discretion given business benefits to Mike | Reversed and remanded — trial court must make findings establishing PSI’s value before final distribution |
| Characterization/award of marital home | Home acquired premarriage; Mike argued it remained nonmarital; trial court erred calling it converted to marital by using as collateral | Bobbie Jo argued marital funds paid debts/improvements justifying award to her | Reversed and remanded — home is nonmarital; however Bobbie Jo may be entitled to an equitable benefit for marital funds used; trial court must quantify that benefit |
| Failure to explain unequal property division | Trial court did not make required findings to justify unequal distribution overall | Broad equitable powers permit variance; findings suffice as made | Not addressed on merits — remand to resolve above valuation/characterization issues which affect overall distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Mathews, 368 Ark. 252 (deference to trial court credibility and factfinding in family matters)
- Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333 (trial court findings on property division must not be clearly erroneous)
- Canady v. Canady, 290 Ark. 551 (focus on equitable division of total marital estate)
- Box v. Box, 312 Ark. 550 (nonowning spouse may receive benefit when marital funds pay debt on nonmarital property)
- Bagwell v. Bagwell, 282 Ark. 403 (marital funds used to improve or reduce debt on nonmarital property can create spouse’s entitlement to benefit)
- Williford v. Williford, 280 Ark. 71 (same principle regarding benefits to nonowning spouse)