Robert Covey v. Jeannie Covey

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, JUDGE

DIVISION I

ROBERT COVEY

APPELLANT

v.

JEANNIE COVEY

APPELLEE

CA 01-00067

SEPTEMBER 19, 2001

APPEAL FROM SALINE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

[NO. E801965]

HONORABLE ROBERT W. GARRETT, CHANCERY JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Robert Covey appeals from a divorce decree entered by the Saline County Chancery Court that granted Jeannie Covey a divorce and divided marital property. On appeal, he argues that the chancellor erred in denying him an equitable interest in Ms. Covey's home because marital funds were used to make improvements. We affirm.

Robert and Jeannie Covey were married on April 9, 1994, and separated on February 28, 1999. Ms. Covey filed for divorce on September 21, 1999, and asked for division of the parties property and debt, and custody of the children. During trial, in addition to testifying about the parties joint and separate debts, Ms. Covey testified that she owned her house in Saline County prior to her marriage and that the parties jointly owned property in Faulkner County. She stated that herhome in Saline County was in her and her father's name when she married, and was in her name alone since she re-mortgaged the home in September. Mr. Covey acknowledged that the home was Ms. Covey's separate property but stated that during the parties' marriage an air conditioner was purchased for the home, he made improvements on the home, and he paid for two house payments. The chancellor, in granting the divorce, found that Mr. Covey did not have any equitable interest in the Saline County non-marital property and awarded it to Ms. Covey. Covey appeals, arguing that he has an equitable interest in the property because marital funds were used to make payments and improvements on the property.

Chancery cases are tried de novo on appeal. Hollinger v. Hollinger, 65 Ark. App. 110, 986 S.W.2d 105 (1999). The findings by a chancellor will not be disturbed unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Stone v. Steed, 54 Ark. App. 11, 923 S.W.2d 282 (1996). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Fonken v. Fonken, 334 Ark. 637, 976 S.W.2d 952 (1998).

Covey argues he is entitled to the value of improvements on the home, citing Camp v. Camp 18 Ark. App. 87, 710 S.W.2d 842 (1986). In Camp, this court held that a spouse is entitled to improvements made during the marriage on nonmarital property if the spouse can prove he or she helped make them, and when the parties were in agreement as to the expenditure of marital funds on improvements it was irrelevant that no written record of the husband's contribution to the improvements was produced. Id. However, here, the parties did not agree about the expenditure of marital funds on the home with the exception of two house payments. As the chancellor noted, Covey offered no proof that this, or any of his alleged improvements, increased the value of the property. Though Covey argues that the $5000 air conditioning unit installed during the parties'marriage constituted an improvement for which he was entitled to an equitable interest, Ms. Covey testified that she paid for the air conditioner charged on her Sears card when she re-mortgaged the home. Therefore, based on our de novo review of the record, the chancellor's determination that Covey was not entitled to an equitable interest in the property is not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

Hart and Pittman, JJ., agree.