{ "id": 1629904, "name": "James MICKLE v. Lois MICKLE", "name_abbreviation": "Mickle v. Mickle", "decision_date": "1972-05-01", "docket_number": "5-5856", "first_page": "468", "last_page": "471", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "252 Ark. 468" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "479 S.W.2d 563" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "202 Ark. 740", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1449873 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0740-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 402, "char_count": 6251, "ocr_confidence": 0.823, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.315618997962843e-08, "percentile": 0.5130847396894568 }, "sha256": "4d5b7cd0eeef78fa1c5d63d5ce51a30927479600edb1ba0931493fbb2c913c27", "simhash": "1:104346065c48d0e4", "word_count": 1009 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:02.058798+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "James MICKLE v. Lois MICKLE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nFrom a divorce decree awarding appellee Lois Mickle alimony, child custody and support and certain property rights, appellant James Mickle brings this appeal. For reversal he contends:\n1. The alimony and child support awards were excessive;\n2. The court erred in awarding appellee an automobile in addition to one third of the personal property;\n3. An excessive valuation was placed on appellant\u2019s interest in Data Testing Inc.; and\n4. An excessive value was placed on appellant\u2019s engineering practice.\nPOINT I. Appellant\u2019s earnings from engineering were as follows:\nYear Professional income from Total adjusted income practice of Engineering per Federal Income Tax\n1965 $20,628.89 $25,219.26\n1966 28,589.19 17,487.33\n1967 25,139.06 9,505.13\n1968 29,379.38 2,432.09\n1969 6,410.26 10,232.62\nBased upon this evidence the trial court awarded alimony to appellee of $700 per month and $150 per month child support for one child. The rule of law is that in fixing the amount of alimony to be awarded, wide discretion. rests with the trial court and unless there appears a clear abuse of discretion it will not be- disturbed on appeal, Lewis v. Lewis, 202 Ark. 740, 151 S.W. 2d 998 (1941). While the amount allowed here is certainly liberal, a majority of the court is unable to say on the record here made that the trial court abused its discretion. The difference between appellant\u2019s professional income and total adjusted income for tax purposes arose through claimed losses from some \u201cSub-chapter S\u201d corporations.\nPOINT II. In addition to an award to appellee of one half of all property held jointly and one third of all appellant\u2019s personal property, the trial court awarded appellee a new car. This was error. The statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1214 (Repl. 1962), authorizes an award of one third of the husband\u2019s personal property to the wife \u2014 nothing more. We cannot agree with appellee that under the circumstances the award should be classified as child support.\nPOINT III. Data Testing, Inc., is a corporation wholly owned by appellant and apparently necessary to his engineering practice. At any rate the parties and the trial court treated it as a separate asset for purposes of fixing the amount of appellee\u2019s property rights therein. Appellee\u2019s accountant fixed the book value at $10,000 but in doing so admitted that he did not determine whether the assets shown on the books existed. Appellant, on the other hand, testified that $4,500 of the $10,000 book value was for certain trucks that were sold before appellant obtained complete ownership of Data Testing to Cletus Collum for $4,000, with the understanding that the purchase price would be paid from profits. At the time of the trial appellant considered the balance thereof, together with another account receivable in fne amount of $1,200, to be uncollectible. Under this state of the record we find that the value should be $4,300 instead of the $10,000 placed thereon by the trial court.\nPOINT IV. The trial court, in fixing the value of appellant\u2019s engineering business, took the value offered by appellee\u2019s accountant Bob Daugherty in the amount of $65,058.28 and added thereto appellant\u2019s accountant\u2019s estimate of the value of \u201cwork in progress\u201d in the amount of $11,992.47 for the total valuation of $77,050.75. This was error.\nDaugherty in his testimony testified that the net worth of Mickle Associates in his opinion was $65,058.28 plus whatever value is allocated to the unearned fees or contracts that had been accepted in the amount of $20,391.21 and on which no work had been performed and also the value of some unaccepted jobs in the amount of $58,-079.00. Daugherty admits that the difference between his values and those of appellant\u2019s accounts arises as a result of the \u201caccounts receivable\u201d. According to all of the accountants the amount of the receivables billed as of June 30, 1970, amounted to $23,994.89. To this amount, Daugherty added $10,421.19 for some accounts billed on July 10, 1970, and also items totalling $24,630.72 which he calculated as the value of the \u201cwork in progress\u201d. Admittedly Daugherty got the most of his information about percentage of completion of unbilled jobs from a clerk in appellant\u2019s office.\nAppellant\u2019s accountant John Gardner, after going over the same records and after conferences with appellant, arrived at a $11,992.47 valuation of the \u201cwork in progress.\u201d\nWhen the chancellor added Gardner\u2019s $11,992.47 valuation for \u201cwork in progress\u201d to Daugherty\u2019s $65,058.28 valuation, error was committed by charging appellant twice for the \u201cwork in progress\u201d. In correcting this doubling up on valuation of \u201cwork in progress\u201d, we are confronted with two different amounts from different witnesses, both of whom were accepted as credible witnesses by the trial court. However, when we view their testimony from the source from which it was obtained and the fact that Daugherty made no estimate of necessary costs of completion of the jobs, we believe that Gardner\u2019s valuation nore accurately reflects value of the \u201cwork in progress\u201d. Admittedly the value of the accepted contracts in the amount of $20,391.21 and the value of the unaccepted contracts in the amount of $58,079.00 are too speculative to have any value. However, it appears that Daugherty properly allowed the $10,421.19 billed on July 10, 1970, as accounts receivable.\nThus when we disallow Daugherty\u2019s \u201cwork in progress\u201d valuation of $24,630.72 from his total evaluation of $65,058.28 and add thereto Gardner\u2019s $11,992.47 valuation of \u201cwork in progress\u201d, we find the total value of Mickle Associates to be $52,420.03.\nWhile this case was docketed in this court, the trial court made certain modifications of the original decree having to do with the income tax liability of appellee on certain shares of stock in Fairfield Bay, Inc. The record here is insufficient for us to reach this issue. This ruling is without prejudice to any other relief to which the appellee may be entitled to seek.\nReversed and remanded.\nA partnership split temporarily affected income for this year.", "type": "majority", "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Pearce, Robinson & McCord, for appellant.", "Jones, Gilbreath ir Jones, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "James MICKLE v. Lois MICKLE\n5-5856\n479 S.W. 2d 563\nOpinion delivered May 1, 1972\nPearce, Robinson & McCord, for appellant.\nJones, Gilbreath ir Jones, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0468-01", "first_page_order": 492, "last_page_order": 495 }