Page 67
APPEAL
FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17DR-15-497],
HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE
Gean,
Gean & Gean, Fort Smith, by: Roy Gean III, for appellant.
Kevin
L. Hickey, Fort Smith, for appellee.
OPINION
ROBERT
J. GLADWIN, Judge
Page 68
Holly
Ballegeer appeals the Crawford County Circuit Courts decree
of divorce, which divides the marital business and personal
property between appellee Craig Ballegeer and her. Holly
argues that the circuit courts decree is clearly erroneous
because (1) the division of the marital business requires her
to compete with Craig in a bidding process; (2) Craig is not
required to compensate her for one-half of the sale proceeds
of marital property that he sold during the pendency of the
litigation; (3) the corporate account is not divided equally
between the parties; (4) she was denied attorneys fees or
fees for her expert witness; and (5) the Can Am is awarded to
Craig rather than ordered sold with the proceeds divided
between the parties. We reverse and remand in part and affirm
in part.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
The
parties were married on July 2, 1983, and began a business in
1997 called Groundskeeper, Inc., which acts as the contractor
for landscaping and maintenance for several fast-food
corporations. Groundskeeper collects the revenue from the
corporations and pays the subcontractors for their labor. For
a time during their marriage, Craig ran the business, and
Holly was the bookkeeper. However, by the time of their
separation in 2016, Holly worked at a retail store earning $
8 an hour and continues to do so. In September 2015, Craig
filed for separate maintenance, and Holly counterclaimed for
divorce. Craig dismissed his separate-maintenance complaint
but filed an amended complaint for divorce on September 26,
2016.
After
a final hearing on June 12, 2017, the circuit court filed a
letter ruling dated August 29, 2017, awarding Holly a divorce
on her counterclaim and ordering that the marital home be
sold. Each party was awarded his and her personal automobile
with any attached debt, and other property was ordered to be
sold with the proceeds equally divided. Each was awarded the
furniture and personal items in his and her possession, and
any personal property not divided by agreement or otherwise
in the letter order was to be sold and the proceeds divided
equally. The court stated, "Any remaining items under
paragraph C of [Hollys] Exhibit 1 shall be sold."
Craig was ordered to pay Holly $ 2200 a month in alimony for
five years. The court further ordered that Groundskeeper was
valued at $ 183,000 "for one-half interest" and
that the parties would divide the business as follows:
[Craig] shall have the first right to buy [Hollys] interest
in the business at the price of $ 183,000.00. If refused,
[Holly] shall have the next right to buy the business at that
price. The value shall then decrease in $ 5,000.00 increments
until one party exercises the right to buy which shall be
accompanied by an earnest money check in the amount of 10% of
the purchase amount which shall be deposited in the trust
account of the attorney of the party who is the seller. The
full price shall be paid within thirty (30) days and
deposited again in the attorneys trust account for the party
representing the seller. These funds after closing and full
payment shall be paid to the party who is the seller. The
Page 69
tax debt shall be assumed by the party purchasing the
business, and shall be that partys responsibility.
The
divorce decree was filed October 5, 2017, and the division of
the marital business followed the courts letter ruling. The
division of property was more specifically set forth as
follows:
[Craig] is hereby awarded all right, title, and interest in
his clothing, personal effects, and jewelry. [Holly] is
hereby awarded all right, title, and interest in her
clothing, personal effects, and jewelry. ...