Williams v. Arnold
2015 Ark. App. 715
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parties divorced in 2007; divorce decree awarded Arnold 32.5% (13/20 of 50%) of Williams’s military retirement and required the parties to “cooperate together so as to ensure” Arnold received that amount directly from the military payment center.
- Arnold never received her 32.5% share from the military or from Williams for roughly seven years after the decree.
- In 2014 Arnold filed a contempt motion alleging Williams knew she was not receiving her share, misled her about eligibility after remarriage, and failed to cooperate to secure DFAS payments.
- Williams admitted he received and spent 100% of the retirement payments, denied telling Arnold she lost eligibility by remarrying, and claimed the decree only required “cooperation” (not affirmative payment) and that DFAS procedures were Arnold’s responsibility.
- The circuit court found Williams in willful civil contempt, obtained DFAS figures showing Williams received $134,044 since the divorce, awarded Arnold 32.5% ($43,564 before tax-credit offset), entered an amortized judgment, and Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arnold) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams was in civil contempt for failing to ensure Arnold received 32.5% of retirement | Williams willfully kept and spent her share and failed to cooperate as ordered | Decree only required cooperation; payments must come from DFAS and not from Williams absent DFAS payment | Court affirmed contempt: decree’s “so as to ensure” language imposed an enforceable duty; Williams willfully disobeyed |
| Whether the decree imposed an affirmative duty on Williams to secure payment from DFAS | Decree’s cooperation clause plus “so as to ensure” required affirmative steps to secure Arnold’s share | Decree contemplated direct DFAS payments to Arnold; no affirmative duty to pay from Williams | Court held the decree was clear enough to require both parties to help secure payment; Williams had duty to help ensure delivery |
| Whether laches barred Arnold’s recovery for benefits dating from the decree | Delay was excused by Williams’s misrepresentations and failure to cooperate; laches should not bar relief | Arnold’s seven-year delay prejudiced Williams; laches applies | Court rejected laches: Williams failed to show detrimental reliance or prejudice; he knew of his obligation and spent her share |
| Whether the court properly calculated and reduced judgment (tax credit, amortization) | Arnold entitled to her 32.5% share of amounts Williams received; credit for taxes allowable | Williams argued calculation/offsets improper | Court’s computation using DFAS totals and tax-offset credit affirmed; judgment and payment schedule upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Ward, 434 S.W.3d 923 (Ark. Ct. App.) (distinguishing civil and criminal contempt; civil contempt compels compliance for private-party benefit)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 185 S.W.3d 621 (Ark. Ct. App.) (court may enforce divorce decree to ensure delivery of retirement benefits)
- Ark. Cnty. v. Desha Cnty., 94 S.W.3d 888 (Ark.) (elements and application of laches)
- Jaramillo v. Adams, 268 S.W.3d 351 (Ark. Ct. App.) (defendant bears burden when asserting affirmative defenses like laches)
- Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 666 F. Supp. 159 (E.D. Ark. 1987) (stipulations incorporated into court orders are enforceable by contempt)