DEBRA L. MASON APPELLANT
CHARLES F. MASON APPELLEE
FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THIRD DIVISION [NO.
60DR-10-1318] HONORABLE CATHLEEN V. COMPTON, JUDGE
Law Firm, by: Bobby R. Digby II, for appellant.
Hilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoun, Ltd., by:
Sam Hilburn and Scott Hilburn, for appellee.
F. VIRDEN, Judge
Mason appeals from several of the Pulaski County Circuit
Court's rulings in her divorce from Charles Mason. Her
appeal presents issues relating to alimony and property
division. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
March 2010, Charles filed a complaint for divorce from Debra,
his wife of twenty-nine years. Charles served as the
financial provider for the family for most of the marriage.
He is an emergency-room physician. Debra has an accounting
degree, but she never received her CPA license and now
requires additional schooling to participate in the exam.
divorce hearing on Charles's complaint was held in June
2011. By that time, the parties had agreed to an uncontested
divorce and the division of most of their personal property.
The primary issues remaining to be resolved were Debra's
request for permanent alimony, the disposition and division
of the marital home, the division of the parties'
retirement accounts, and debt allocation.
August 2011, the trial court entered a divorce decree. In the
decree, Charles was ordered to pay Debra alimony in the
amount of $3500 a month for thirty-six months and thereafter
$1500 a month for sixty months or upon Debra's
remarriage, whichever occurred first. The decree provided
that the alimony award was based partially on the assumption
that the parties would each receive approximately $150, 000
from the sale of the marital home. Also pertinent to this
appeal is a provision of the decree finding that a Scottrade
retirement account is Charles's nonmarital property.
timely appealed, challenging the alimony award and the
finding that the Scottrade account was Charles's
nonmarital property. In June 2012, our court dismissed that
appeal for lack of a final order because the court did not
make a final disposition of the marital home. See Mason
v. Mason, 2012 Ark.App. 393.
October 2012, the trial court entered an order that addressed
the disposition of the marital home. The order included a
provision stating that
[t]he issues of whether the Plaintiff receives credit for any
reduction in the principal of the house and any repairs he
has made are reserved. If the home is sold, the parties shall
deposit any disputed funds into escrow subject to further
orders of this Court. This order is not intended to be a
final order as there are issues still outstanding.
house eventually sold for $710, 000 in January 2014.
February 2014, Debra filed a motion to modify alimony. She
argued she was entitled to an increase in alimony because
Charles's income had substantially increased since the
divorce was granted and that the award of alimony was based,
in part, on the incorrect assumption that the parties would
each receive approximately $150, 000 from the sale of the