Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Warren v. Warren
Citations: 33 Ark. App. 63; 800 S.W.2d 730; 1990 Ark. App. LEXIS 725Docket: CA 90-171
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; December 26, 1990; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Linda and Oliver Warren were married on August 31, 1986, and separated three years later, with no children or significant marital property. The chancellor granted Mrs. Warren a divorce on the grounds of general indignities, returned non-marital property to each party, and ordered Mr. Warren to pay part of two credit card bills and reimburse Mrs. Warren for half of their joint tax liabilities. Mr. Warren appealed, arguing that the chancellor lacked authority to divide marital debts. The leading case, Hackett v. Hackett, established that while the chancellor is not required to divide debts, he must consider them when making decisions regarding alimony, support, and property division. The court noted that debts incurred on behalf of minor children can be ordered paid, and obligations made jointly can be settled between the parties. It was emphasized that it would be unrealistic for a chancellor to ignore debts when deciding a divorce case. Although the code does not explicitly grant the chancellor the power to allocate marital debts, the implication from Hackett suggests he does possess such authority. The court affirmed the chancellor's discretion to allocate community liabilities, stating that failing to do so would undermine the effectiveness of divorce settlements. Mr. Warren also contended that payments made by Mrs. Warren towards joint tax liabilities and credit card bills constituted a gift to him. The determination of whether a gift was intended is a factual question requiring clear and convincing evidence. The court found the chancellor’s conclusion that no gift was intended was not clearly erroneous. The ruling was affirmed, with judges Corbin and Cooper concurring.