{ "id": 6141703, "name": "Jon D. WARREN v. Sue WARREN", "name_abbreviation": "Warren v. Warren", "decision_date": "1984-09-19", "docket_number": "CA 83-412", "first_page": "260", "last_page": "262", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "12 Ark. App. 260" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "675 S.W.2d 371" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "4 Ark. App. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136377 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/4/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "419 S.W.2d 311", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 Ark. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718071 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/243/0113-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 260, "char_count": 4549, "ocr_confidence": 0.844, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0071752218304149e-07, "percentile": 0.5409863663866117 }, "sha256": "848eca3ea0b6ae3c6300359bee18d3b3aa6fae6c776d0637d65160ab7c15b9a8", "simhash": "1:a8ce2f58082981dc", "word_count": 727 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:00:16.322657+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Cracraft, C.J., and Cooper, J., agree." ], "parties": [ "Jon D. WARREN v. Sue WARREN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nThis appeal is from the property settlement provisions of a divorce decree entered May 2, 1983. The appellant contends the chancellor erred in awarding the appellee an undivided one-half interest of appellant\u2019s one-third interest in a partnership. Appellant also contends the chancellor erred in the distribution of the parties\u2019 debts, particularly partnership debts, contracted during the marriage. We agree with appellant that the chancellor erred in awarding the appellee an undivided one-sixth interest in the partnership. However, the chancellor was correct in determining that the partnership was marital property subject to being divided equally between the parties. Therefore, we modify his decision to reflect the proper manner of determining the amount to which appellee is entitled, and we remand for that determination to be made.\nThe appellant is in business with his father and his brother. Each owns an undivided one-third interest in J-W Foods, a retail grocery store in Huntsville. The chancellor found that the grocery business was marital property to be divided equally between the appellant and the appellee. As a part of his order, the Chancellor found:\nSue Warren [appellee] becomes the owner of an undivided one-sixth interest in such partnership and partnership assets.. . . [T]he interest of. . .Sue Warren in such partnership is subject to the liabilities of such partnership existing on the date of this order.\nThe appellant contends the chancellor should have awarded the appellee a sum in cash equal to one-half of appellant\u2019s net interest in the partnership. We agree. Under the Uniform Partnership Act, a partner\u2019s rights in specific partnership assets are those of a tenant in partnership. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 65-125 (Repl. 1980). In determining at divorce the rights of a husband or wife to a spouse\u2019s partnership interest, the court cannot make specific awards of partnership assets. The court must first determine the value of the spouse\u2019s interest in the partnership, treating the accounts receivable as assets having a provable fair net present value, and then award the husband or wife a monetary decree equal to one-half that amount, the same to be enforced if necessary by a charging order on the partnership interest. Riegler v. Riegler, 243 Ark. 113, 419 S.W.2d 311 (1967). We cannot make that determination ourselves on the record before us. Further proceedings will be necessary on remand to determine appellant\u2019s net interest in the partnership.\nThe appellee contends that Glover v. Glover, 4 Ark. App. 27, 627 S.W.2d 30 (1982), is factually similar to the case at bar and that it states the controlling law. Relying upon Glover, appellee contends the chancellor was correct in awarding her a one-half of appellant\u2019s one-third interest in the partnership, giving her a one-sixth interest in the partnership. However, the facts in Glover are distinguishable. The wife in Glover owned a one-fourth interest in the partnership before the divorce. As part of the property division, the chancellor awarded the husband all of both his and his wife\u2019s interests in the partnership. On appeal, we reinstated to the appellant wife the one-fourth interest in the partnership that was hers all along. In the case at bar, the appellee wife was clearly not a partner in the business. However, she did participate in the acquisition of the business during the parties\u2019 marriage, and she is entitled to a share of the value of that business.\nFor his second point, appellant contends the appellee should be required to pay a portion of the parties\u2019 marital debts, particularly those involving the partnership. The chancellor specifically ordered the appellee to pay those debts she had incurred personally on the parties\u2019 charge accounts from the date of the parties\u2019 separation until the decree was rendered. The appellant\u2019s argument with respect to partnership debts is rendered moot by our disposition of his first issue.\nTherefore, we reverse that part of the chancellor\u2019s decree awarding the appellee a one-sixth interest in the partnership and remand for a determination of the value of appellant\u2019s interest in the partnership and a monetary award in appellant\u2019s favor for one-half of that amount.\nAffirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.\nCracraft, C.J., and Cooper, J., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "W. Q. Hall, for appellant.", "Everett