Wadley v. Wadley
2012 Ark. App. 208
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Marital dissolution of Dr. Michael Wadley and Elizabeth Wadley; amended divorce decree entered July 27, 2011 finalizing all issues after an initial November 2009 decree.
- No children were born of the marriage; parties separated in 2007 and resided in Searcy, Arkansas.
- Beth retained certain non-marital assets; Michael retained specific business and personal assets; marital assets and debts were to be divided.
- The decree awarded Beth $270,000 as her share of the marital value of the Wadley & Watson Veterinary Clinic and $2,000 monthly permanent alimony to Beth.
- A certificate of deposit (CD) held in Michael’s name, funded by a $200,000 loan from a bank and bearing debt obligations, was treated as a marital asset but not divided equally, prompting a cross-appeal by Beth seeking equal division of the CD’s equity.
- The cross-appeal resulted in reversal and remand for reconsideration of the CD equity division, while the direct appeal upheld the alimony award and the clinic valuation within the evidence range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony amount appropriateness | Wadley argues $2,000/month is excessive given Beth's income. | Wadley contends alimony should be lower based on earning disparity and debt. | Alimony affirmed; court found no clear abuse of discretion. |
| Marital value of veterinary clinic | Wadley contends Beth’s CPA overvalues the clinic; court should adopt lower value. | Beth’s CPA valued higher; trial court could weight that testimony. | Valuation within range; trial court not clearly erroneous in awarding Beth $270,000. |
| Dividing the marital equity in the CD | CD equity should be divided equitably between the parties. | CD asset and debt division favored Michael; no reason stated for inequitable split. | Reversed and remanded for proper equitable division of the CD and a possible alimony adjustment on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coatney v. Coatney, 377 S.W.3d 381 (Ark. 2010) (no mathematical precision required in property division; equitable standard employed)
- Hernandez v. Hernandez, 265 S.W.3d 746 (Ark. 2007) (de novo review of domestic-relations appeals; abuse of discretion standard applied to alimony)
- Page v. Page, 373 S.W.3d 408 (Ark. 2010) (consideration of past standard of living and marriage duration in alimony analysis)
- Cole v. Cole, 110 S.W.3d 310 (Ark. App. 2003) (great discretion in alimony; not a fixed mathematical formula)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 292 S.W.3d 819 (Ark. App. 2009) (complementary use of alimony and property division to achieve equity)