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.
Epperson v. Epperson
Citations: 94 Ark. App. 127; 226 S.W.3d 35Docket: CA 05-548
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; February 1, 2006; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
The marriage between Nancy Epperson and Charles “Chuck” Epperson was dissolved on February 1, 2003, following mediation that resolved most custody, visitation, and property division issues but left unresolved the status of appellee’s termination benefits from his employment. The trial court ruled that these benefits were not marital property, a decision which Nancy Epperson is appealing. The benefits stem from contracts Chuck Epperson had with State Farm Insurance, specifically an agency agreement and a transition agreement established in 1997. These agreements outlined termination benefits contingent on the duration of service, with specific compensation structures for agents based on their years of service and the type of policies managed. Testimony indicated that Chuck Epperson had been with State Farm since 1980 and did not intend to terminate his employment. The trial court, referencing the precedent set in Lawyer v. Lawyer, concluded that the termination benefits in question were not considered marital property, as they were contingent upon future events and not directly accrued during the marriage. The contract included an 'Extended Termination Payments' provision, classified as a 'true retirement plan,' which activated upon termination after the agent turned sixty-five and completed twenty years of service. State Farm projected that the husband would receive $1,288 monthly for five years if the contract ended at trial. The trial court determined these benefits were marital property and ordered the wife to receive half, contingent upon termination and her survival. The supreme court reversed this decision, stating the future benefits were too speculative to qualify as marital property, as they depended on commissions from renewal premiums, which did not correlate with current earnings. The court found no significant difference between this case and Lawyer v. Lawyer, where similar benefits were deemed non-marital property. Although the appellant cited other jurisdictions recognizing such benefits as marital, the court maintained adherence to its precedent set in Lawyer. The request to remand for a determination of the present value of the termination benefits was deemed unnecessary given that the benefits were ruled non-marital property. The decision was affirmed with agreement from Judges Gladwin and Robbins.