FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THIRTEENTH DIVISION
[NO. 60DR-15-5053], HONORABLE W. MICHAEL REIF, JUDGE
Law Firm, Little Rock, by: Steven A. Owings and Tammy B.
Gattis, for appellant.
& Taylor Law Firm, P.A., Little Rock, by: Andrew M. Taylor
and Tasha C. Taylor, for appellee.
B. SWITZER, Judge
Appellant Dr. Dac Tat Pham and appellee Anh Thuy Nguyen were
May 1987 and lived together as husband and wife until July
2011. Nguyen filed for divorce in Tennessee in 2011, but the
only action taken in that case appears to be an order
freezing the parties bank accounts and restraining Dr. Pham
from the parties homes in Memphis and Little Rock. Dr. Pham
eventually filed for divorce in Arkansas in December 2015. A
final divorce hearing was held on August 30, 2017, and the
divorce decree was filed on March 19, 2018. On appeal, Dr.
Pham argues the circuit court erred: (1) in excluding his
experts written report and refusing to allow him to rely on
his report during his testimony; (2) in dividing retirement
accounts as of the date of divorce instead of the date of
separation; (3) in finding a $75,000 debt owed to Nguyens
brother should be divided equally between the parties; and
(4) in finding he was solely liable for a $50,000 mortgage on
his medical office. We affirm.
Standard of Review
court reviews domestic-relations cases de novo, but we will
not reverse the circuit courts findings unless they are
clearly erroneous. Doss v. Doss, 2018 Ark.App. 487,
561 S.W.3d 348. A 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. We give due
deference to the circuit courts superior position to
determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be
given their testimony. McGahhey v. McGahhey, 2018
Ark.App. 597, 567 S.W.3d 522.
Exclusion of Experts Written Report
Phams first point on appeal is that the circuit court erred
in refusing to allow his expert, CPA Curtis Winar, to use his
written report during his testimony at the hearing regarding
which funds he considered to be premarital and the current
value of those funds. Although Winars name had been
previously disclosed to Nguyen, Winars written report was
not disclosed until the day before the final hearing, which
was after the expert-report exchange deadline set forth by
the circuit courts scheduling order. Nguyens counsel
requested that Winars testimony and his report be excluded.
Although the circuit court allowed Winar to testify, it ruled
he could not use the report during his testimony.
hearing, Winar testified that the value of Dr. Phams
retirement plans was approximately $2,500,000. He stated that
the value of the premarital portion of the retirement funds
as of December 2016 was approximately $237,000, and if the
circuit court determined that the marital contributions
stopped as of June 2011, the premarital portion would be
worth over $500,000.
support of his argument, Dr. Pham cites Hill v.
Billups,85 Ark.App. 166, 148 S.W.3d 288 (2004).
Hill does not support Dr. Phams argument. In that
case, the question on appeal was whether the circuit court
erred in analyzing the admissibility of ...