Watkins v. Watkins
2012 Ark. App. 27
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rebecca Watkins and Floyd “Chuck” Watkins, previously married twice, divorced after a second marriage without children.
- Pre-marital real property was owned by Rebecca; at the first divorce she kept the mobile home and paid its debt, and Chuck received a four-wheeler.
- During the second marriage (2004-2008), disputes centered on $82,500 Chuck deposited in a joint account and later redeposited, and on funds from sale of farm equipment.
- In August 2009 the circuit court awarded Rebecca a divorce; Chuck received a life estate in a shop building and surrounding land, with other listed assets deemed marital; unspecified assets remained in separate property.
- Multiple post-trial opinions (August 2009, September 2009, February 2010) refined classifications and rejected a sale of the shop building but treated various equipment and the shop as marital or separate as stated.
- Rebecca appealed, challenging the unequal division of marital property and the basis for awarding Chuck a life estate and separate treatment of post-separation acquisitions; the appellate court remands for a more comprehensive explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court explain an unequal division of marital property? | Rebecca argues there are no reasons for unequal division. | Chuck argues the division followed applicable factors and is consistent with evidence. | Remanded for explanation of factors supporting inequality. |
| Was Chuck's life estate in Rebecca's nonmarital property properly justified and described? | Rebecca challenges the lack of specifics and continuation of business needs. | Court held life estate appropriate based on factors; no further detail mandated. | Remanded to address property description and ongoing business needs. |
| Were marital funds used by Chuck during the marriage properly treated as marital property? | Funds taken from a joint account should be accounted to Rebecca; marital earnings from Chuck’s business were marital property. | Court previously stated funds were separate or not adequately explained; post-separation use cannot be ignored. | Remanded for proper explanation of rebuttal of presumption and fund treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Box v. Box, 312 Ark. 550, 851 S.W.2d 437 (1993) (acknowledges factors for division and non-mathematical precision)
- Williford v. Williford, 280 Ark. 71, 655 S.W.2d 398 (1983) (illustrates equitable distribution considerations)
- Baxley v. Baxley, 86 Ark.App. 200, 167 S.W.3d 158 (2004) (addressing unequal division standards)
- McKay v. McKay, 340 Ark. 171, 8 S.W.3d 525 (2000) (divorce property division framework)
- Lofton v. Lofton, 23 Ark. App. 203, 745 S.W.2d 635 (1988) (property division considerations on appeal)
- Harvey v. Harvey, 295 Ark. 102, 747 S.W.2d 89 (1988) (premises for marital vs nonmarital property)
- Cole v. Cole (I), 82 Ark.App. 47, 110 S.W.3d 310 (2003) (precedent on division of property and miscarried requirements)