APPEAL
FROM THE FULTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 25DR-13-50]
HONORABLE DON MCSPADDEN, JUDGE
Jeremy
B. Lowrey, for appellant.
Ethredge & Copeland, P.A., by: Johnnie A. Copeland, for
appellee.
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge.
Appellant
Rick Doss appeals the divorce decree entered by the Fulton
County Circuit Court on September 6, 2017. We affirm.
Rick
and appellee Jennifer Doss were married on September 29,
2009; Rick filed for divorce on May 6, 2013. Over the next
few years, while their divorce was pending, the parties would
reconcile at times and then file amended pleadings. The
couple finally separated for good on September 26, 2015. Two
hearings on the matter were held--on November 30, 2016, and
on December 18, 2016, but the final order was not entered
until September 6, 2017. This timely appeal followed.
On
appeal, Rick argues that the circuit court failed to make
requisite findings to support an unequal division of debts
and assets and that the record does not support an uneven
division. He contends that "at minimum, the court's
division resulted in a distribution inequity of over $80,
000." Rick contests that there was no equity in the
circuit court's decision; that the court did not make the
required express findings pursuant to statute; and that there
was no evidentiary support for the court's findings. For
the following reasons, we affirm the circuit court's
rulings.
Our
court reviews domestic-relations cases de novo on the record,
but we will not reverse the circuit court's findings
unless they are clearly erroneous. Hunter v.
Haunert, 101 Ark.App. 93, 270 S.W.3d 339 (2007). A
circuit court's finding is clearly erroneous when,
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court
on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. In
order to demonstrate that the circuit court's ruling was
erroneous, the appellant must show that the lower court
abused its discretion by making a decision that was arbitrary
or groundless. Skokos v. Skokos, 344 Ark. 420, 40
S.W.3d 768 (2001). We give due deference to the circuit
court's superior position to determine the credibility of
witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.
Kelly v. Kelly, 2011 Ark. 259, 381 S.W.3d 817.
With
respect to the division of property, we review the circuit
court's findings of fact and affirm them unless they are
clearly erroneous or against the preponderance of the
evidence; the division of property itself is also reviewed,
and the same standard applies. See Conlee v. Conlee,
370 Ark. 89, 257 S.W.3d 543 (2007). In accordance with
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-12-315(a)(1) (Repl. 2015),
at the time of entry of a divorce decree, the circuit court
shall equally distribute all marital property one-half to
each party unless it is determined that such a distribution
would be inequitable; if the property is not divided equally,
then the circuit court must state the reasons and basis for
not doing so, and the basis and reasons should be recited in
the order entered in the matter. Brown v. Brown,
2016 Ark.App. 172. Factors to be considered by the circuit
court in the event that the marital property is not divided
equally include the length of the marriage; the age, health,
and station in life of the parties; the occupation of the
parties; the amount and sources of income available to each
party; vocational skills; employability; the estate,
liabilities, and needs of each party and opportunity of each
for further acquisition of capital assets and income;
contribution of each party in acquisition, preservation, or
appreciation of marital property, including homemaker
services; and the federal income tax consequences of the
court's division of property. Ark. Code Ann. §
9-12-315(a)(1)(A).
Additionally,
we have held that a nonowning spouse is entitled to some
benefit when marital funds have been expended to reduce the
debt on the other spouse's nonmarital property.
Wilson v. Wilson, 2016 Ark.App. 256, 492 S.W.3d 534.
However, that reduction in debt on nonmarital property is not
considered to be marital property to be divided equally;
instead, the nonowning spouse is simply entitled to have the
marital contribution considered in balancing the equities
involved in the property division. Id. In a divorce
action, statutory law requires that all marital property be
distributed at the time a divorce decree is entered.
See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315(a)(1)(A). But the
main purpose of the property-division statute is to enable
the circuit court to make a division of property that is fair
and equitable under the circumstances. See Hoover v.
Hoover, 70 Ark.App. 215, 16 S.W.3d 560 (2000). A circuit
court has broad powers to distribute property to achieve an
equitable distribution. See Hodges v. Hodges, 27
Ark.App. 250, 770 S.W.2d 164 (1989). Property division and
alimony are complementary devices that the circuit court may
utilize in combination to make the dissolution of marriage
equitable. Moore v. Moore, 2016 Ark. 105, 486 S.W.3d
766.
Based
on our review of the record, and specifically on our
examination of the divorce decree, we hold that the circuit
court adequately weighed the factors listed in section
9-12-315 in light of both the alimony claim and the
inequitable-division-of-marital-property claim. The court
began its examination of the assets and determined the
characterization of them as either marital or nonmarital
based on lengthy testimony by Rick regarding movement of
funds in to and out of his individual accounts and the sale
of assets during the pendency of the divorce. The court also
analyzed the division of the assets by considering the needs
of Jennifer and the ability of Rick to pay. The court stated
that it could not assess Rick's ability to pay due to the
"obfuscation of assets." The circuit court awarded
Jennifer her marital share of the 401k retirement account and
acknowledged that it was basically impossible to trace the
origin of those funds from the facts presented. The circuit
court split Rick's tax refund equally between the parties
and also divided the parties' marital foreign
currency--Iraqi Dinars--equally, minus the amounts owed to
separate family members. The circuit court awarded Rick his
premarital property and its associated debt, acknowledging
the pay down of $77, 000 benefiting this property during the
marriage. The circuit court also awarded Jennifer the Green
Acres marital storage-unit property and charged her with its
underlying debt.
When
the circuit court divides property unequally, our
property-division statute requires the court to state its
basis and reasons for not dividing the marital property
equally between the parties, and the basis and reasons should
be recited in the circuit court's order. See
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315(a)(1)(B). In the instant case,
the circuit court did just that. The circuit court explained
its reasoning for the unequal division, noting that the court
had the ability to award alimony but that Rick's ability
to pay was unclear. Therefore, rather than awarding alimony,
the court found that Jennifer's need would be met by an
unequal distribution of the marital assets and debts in order
to balance the equities between the parties.
While
the circuit court must consider the factors set forth in the
statute and state its reasons for dividing property
unequally, it is not required to list each factor in its
order or to weigh all the factors equally. See
Kelly, supra; Bamburg v. Bamburg, 2011
Ark.App. 546, 386 S.W.3d 31. Further, our supreme court has
determined that "the specific enumeration of the factors
within the statute does not preclude a circuit court from
considering other relevant factors, where exclusion of other
factors would lead to absurd results or deny the intent of
the legislature to allow for the equitable division of
property." Hernandez v. Hernandez, 371 Ark.
323, 328, 265 S.W.3d 746, 750 (2007).
The
allocation of marital debt must be considered in the context
of the distribution of all of the parties' property.
Bailey v. Bailey, 97 Ark.App. 96, 244 S.W.3d 712
(2006). However, our court has held that Arkansas Code
Annotated section 9-12-315 and its presumption of equal
division does not apply to the division of marital debts.
Williams v. Williams, 82 Ark.App. 294, 108 S.W.3d
629 (2003); Ellis v. Ellis, 75 Ark.App. 173, 57
S.W.3d 220 (2001). A determination that debts should be
allocated between the ...