Lynn B. HARGIS, Appellant
v.
Allen HARGIS, Appellee
Page 209
APPEAL
FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26DR-07-621-III],
HONORABLE THOMAS LYNN WILLIAMS, JUDGE
Tripcony,
May & Associates, Little Rock, by: James L. Tripcony, for
appellant.
Taylor
and Taylor & Taylor Law Firm, P.A., Little Rock, by: Andrew
M. Taylor and Tasha C. Taylor, for appellee.
OPINION
SHAWN
A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
This
case arises out of a long-running dispute between Allen and
Lynn Hargis over the division of Allens military retirement
account following their divorce. After resolving the dispute,
the circuit court awarded attorneys fees to Allen. Lynn
contends the circuit court should have conducted a hearing on
the parties respective financial abilities prior to ordering
attorneys fees. Its failure to do so, she claims, infringed
upon her right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment. We disagree.
I.
Because this appeal stems from an award of attorneys fees,
we summarize the facts and procedural history only to the
extent necessary to understand this case. In 2009, Allen and
Lynn Hargis divorced after twenty-seven years of marriage.
Under their property settlement agreement, Lynn would receive
half of Allens military retirement account, as of the date
of the divorce. Four months before his April 2014 retirement,
Allen presented Lynn with a proposed order effecting the
division of his expected monthly retirement benefit valued at
the date of divorce. She refused to sign it. Lynn insisted
she was entitled to a full half of the pay, including the
portion earned in the five years after the divorce.
Allen
consequently moved to enforce the property settlement
agreement. He included a request for attorneys fees in the
motion. Lynn countered with a motion requesting
Page 210
the full half of Allens retirement pay. She later included a
request for reimbursement of insurance premiums under the
settlement agreement. Two years of discovery and motions
practice followed. In November 2016, a hearing was held on
the motion to enforce and Lynns counter motions. Allen
presented expert testimony on military retirement law. The
expert explained that, under his calculations, Lynn was
entitled to 37.5% of Allens monthly retirement pay.
The
next month, the court issued a letter opinion granting
Allens motion to enforce and adopting his experts
calculations. It held that Allen was entitled to fees and
costs for the filing and prosecution of the motion. The court
noted Allen had overpaid Lynn by $4,775.73. Because he had
not sought relief on overpayment, the court declined to grant
judgment setting off that amount. Lynn was granted $5,210.55
for reimbursement of insurance premiums. The court instructed
Allen to prepare a precedent order that included a blank line
for attorneys fees and costs.
On
February 23, 2017, the court entered an order reflecting its
earlier findings.[1] The formal order reiterated that Allen
was entitled to attorneys fees and costs. It stated he could
petition the court with proof of the amount sought. Allen
timely moved for attorneys fees seeking, as relevant here,
an amount of $18,325.00. He supplied an affidavit from his
attorney and documentation explaining the amount. Lynn
objected. She alleged, among other things, that Allens
financial abilities far exceeded her own and requested a
hearing and discovery on that issue. She did not submit an
affidavit or any other documentation to support her otherwise
conclusory assertions.
Sixteen
days after Lynns response, the circuit court issued a letter
opinion awarding Allen with $18,325.00 in attorneys fees.
The award was offset against the $5,210.55 awarded to Lynn
for reimbursement of insurance premiums. A formal order
followed three weeks later. Lynn subsequently filed a
"Motion for Relief" under Arkansas Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(a)(1). Because the court did not conduct a
hearing on the parties relative financial abilities, Lynn
argued that she ...