*1 Hugo MEINHOLZ v. MEINHOLZ Ludwig Lynn Judith of Arkansas Supreme delivered October Opinion *2 Mclnnis, for appellant. E. Winston Madsen, P.A., for appellee. Carl J. a This is divorce case. P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice. our statute governing the Court must again interpret
Once cases. Ark. Stat. Ann. the division of divorce here is whether The basic (Supp. 1983). question “enhanced business career” as recognize appellee’s our statute. under present married in appellant, When Judith Meinholz, degree had a bachelor of science Lynn Meinholz, immi- recently had Ludwig Hugo appellee, Germany. from While United States grated he was fluent completely English, was appellee several with the competent enough language acquire Foods He is Riceland jobs. presently employed by $47,000 a year. executive and earns capacity approximately 1982, From the of the until the divorce time homemaking took care of appellant generally exception care The sole moneymaking. took appellee school for was a when the period taught lived They a when the lived New year couple Jersey. had two they which years, during together eighteen sons, now and ages 13. divorce; 1982,
In Meinhоlz sued for April Ludwig divorce. The filed a seeking wife a counterclaim also Meinholz; Mrs. ordered that the decree divorce to granted be sold when the children reach family home divided; directed Mr. Meinholz proceeds, and child fоr the support until alimony January children; minor divided the personal property, including accounts, profit sharing pension two IRA and a plan Foods; did Mr. Meinholz at Riceland not find Mr. Meinholz’s “enhanced business career” marital propеrty to distribution under our subject present statute. We with the chancellor on the “enhanced failing business career” as marital we reverse on the remand other discussed us and order points fashion decree not inconsistent with opinion. comes to us under Ark. appeal Sup. Ct. *3 R. 29(l)(c).
The appellant’s argument first is that the chancellor erred in failing recognize “enhanced appellee’s business career” as marital to distri- property subject bution. Her this point indicates she testimony gave up her ambition to be a counselor and instead became homemaker because she and Mr. Meinholz agreed they were a toward partnership working the common goal establishing careеr. There was she also testimony has a degenerative disc prevents disease which her from certain doing jobs that require extensive manual labor. The her appellant analogizes situation to the “pro- fessional licensе” cases where works while the spouse other obtains and professional few assets are degree acquired so that when the couple divorces has inequity arisen since earning increased professional spousе’s potential no longer inures to the benefit of the other spouse. She maintains that the earning capacity increased is the same whether such was enhanced capacity increased education or increаsed skills and asks this such as marital capacity that he his wife appellee argues prevented never from seeking her or from separate goals educational Furthermore, after working they were married. he main- tains that his wifе is a articulate woman with a bright, mentally equipped is physically
college degree work. license cases several professional cites
The appellant Inman, In Inman argument. support said, 1979) husband’s App. (Ky. S.W.2d “[T]he degree, еarning power, represented increased there is no where be counted as marital indeed who spouse sub- marital accumulated Here, the is maintenance.” for degree ineligible sidized is maintenance and there accumu- for eligible is appellant Furthermore, court said the Inman marital property. lated in determining factor to consider one important is is to proper classification whether a has extent nonlicense-holder to which the consider his or her from financially or otherwise benefited already maintenance. for earning eligible spouse’s capacity, case of these important Both factors here, been to the appellee has married appellant from her already benefits reaped eighteen years is unlike the earnings. typical increased This husband’s at the license where the divorce occurs professional Also, as begin. already wherе earnings the increased maintenance here is eligible mentioned in the form of in fact has been ordered receive it Mrs. Mein- the trial court. On the extent of alimony by *4 conflicting testimony. holz’s there was Where disability, defer the testimony, judgment are conflicts in there the witnesses credibility the trial as to the of judge of of of making because superiority position Weber, determination. Weber v. 256 (1974). 725 third and appellant’s does not contest
Appellee on He concedes that when house points appeal. fourth sold, are the television remaining and the marital property should also be sold at time. possession set four, that a Similarly agrees Singer on point appellee oven, mаchine, chairs, a six kitchen microwave sewing owned by and a used recliner chair were gifts property and are therefore marriage appellant prior to marital On exception within
513 agreements in will include these his decree. appeal problem This involves another distribution opinion recently. we have issued an which is arguing by awarding chancellor erred Mr. pension Day plan. Day, Meinholz his Riceland In Foods 281Ark. 261, stated: S.W.2d 719 inadvertently now we have realize that failed to concept property,” the new “of
created Act of as amended. That statute acquired defines marital as all spouse subsequent either ceptions with ex- important here. Section 34-1214 1983). That law direсts all marital distributed unless the court finds that inequitable division . . . holdings Supreme Court,
Under the recent of the spouses must be treated in the absence of a making valid reason for a distinction. Our law pursuant was enacted to that mandate and must be harmony easy construed in is that intent. It legislative purpose demonstrate that frustrated if will be controlling are differences drawn between pensions currently payable vested and and those that payable are vested the futurе. present sparse
Our record case on this pension plan the Riceland Foods is not an exhibit. pension rights it is clear that Mr. Meinholz’s enjoy vested that he will be entitled the financial sixty years benefits or about when he reaches age, present employment. whether or not he continues in his trial, $7,959 At the time there was in this fund. *5 by Jersey
We with the view affirmed the New Court in (1981): Kikkert, Kikkert v. 438A.2d 317 pension]
It [the is the of direct or indirect result both parties or expended by efforts — it is services compensation additional acquired and employer right rendered the Hence, considerations equitable the during marriage. where, here, as for distribution mandate its inclusion for benefits and already has employee qualified during marriage, foregone spouse, the other compensation repre- of that additional enjoyment it whether not the cost of by plan sented Each had spouse contributions. employee requires with the enjoyment of future the same exрectation survive to need pensioner only knowledge receive it. are known accounts, the amounts IRA
Similarly benefits have vested. There and those attainable or easily and be no between appellee’s aрpel- should distinction are both marital accounts. They lant’s be included for distribution. trial next contention is that the appellant’s in all to share requiring parties erred The chancellor’s and maintenance to the home. repairs 1, he to this In Paragraph decree is as ambiguous point. for all responsible that Mrs. Meinholz shall be states utilities, maintenance and shall repairs keep routine at least as it now exists. good the house a condition as that the next section under that he states paragraph, In the taxes, insurance, share the jointly expense parties Strang routine maintenance. held other Strang, 258 of any major repairs
husband was ordered to half because in the necessary upkeep homeplace “[t]he on the major repairs mortgage payments undivided one- Strang’s would increase Mr. protect of Mrs. interest as well as that half the decree modify On the chancellor will Strang.” share in the costs of provide and maintenance home. repairs will The other issue raised the appellant Ann. 34- fees. Ark. Stat. matter of is the discuss
515 1983)provides that marital 1214 party half be to each unless the court distributed inequitable finds such a to bе division in which dividing must state its basis and reasons not property equally. purpose We view the of this making parties equal. as statute compel- find no ling reason automatically the wife’s fees unless the chancellor finds it to be We will Suitable. finding disturb triаl court’s absent clear abuse. We find no such abuse here.
The did not have holding Day of our benefit in when this case was heard. Equity play require and fair a remand to the trial court. Gentry (1984). Gentry, Ark. 668 947 S.W.2d alleged appellant chancellor сan correct other errors proceed- on remand. We reverse and remand further ings by the chancellor and for the to be decree modified opinion. with consistent part part; reversed
Affirmed and remanded. J., Hickman, concurs in dissents in part, part. part. dissents in J.,
Purtle,
Hays, J., concurs. concurring. Justice, I concur in the Hays, Steele majority opinion express but the view that the Chan- prospective alimony ought cellor’s reduction be developments cоnditioned pre- on later and not on determined finding order. If the is successful in employment, largely matter, that should resolve the but proof genuine employ- raised doubts about both ability employment prospects. I believe those issuеs open. left part, concurring dissent- Justice, Hickman, Darrell ing part. essentially I concur the result write opinion. problems First, several out v. Day Day, I adhere to my expressed views plans. of retirement on the matter S.W.2d 719 Second, business not believe an “enhanced I do *7 law; a contrary Arkansas can be under career” “property” is left majority. impression Third, miscites Strang Strang, matter law to hold as a of order the to share parties the chancellor must maintеnance to house. the costs repairs new even under the law discretionary That is a matter clear I allow up would inconsistencies the decree. apparent Fourth, I that while the chancellor would out forth his carеfully setting findings, a detailed letter wrote there less than division of property an anytime equal reasons. Ark. Stat. Ann. 34- the chancellor must give § In this the chanellor undoubtedly (Supp. 1983). have, discretion, fairly as he should divide used these matters are we аre appealed, when property, with reasons. If there confronted the problem finding none, we must follow the statute order equal division on remand. for the order to the chancellor to enter
Except repairs, share I finding concur. I dissenting part. Purtle, Justice, John not require does 1983) Ann.
Ark. Stat. the property fees when attorney’s be awarded the wife up ends wife when equally. is divided fees and attorney’s from which no money available, it proper I think money the husband I her fees. amount to pay reasonable award fees such awarded this case should think wife husband. from the