Paul A. Dee, Jr. v. Erin Dee
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, JUDGE
DIVISION II
CA06-1163
J UNE 6, 2007
PAUL A. DEE, JR.
APPELLANT
V.
AP P E AL FR O M TH E B E N TO N
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. DR-2005-1837-4]
HON. XOLLIE DUNCAN,
JUDGE
ERIN DEE
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND DISMISSED
Appellant Paul Dee, Jr. appeals from the divorce decree granted in favor of appellee
Erin Dee on the ground of general indignities. On appeal appellant argues that the circuit court
erred in granting the divorce because there was insufficient evidence as to the grounds asserted
by appellee. He also argues that the circuit court failed to give him full credit for pre-marital
funds that were loaned to the marital estate. We find merit in his first argument; accordingly,
we reverse and dismiss.
The parties were married on November 22, 1997, and separated on October 22, 2005.
One child was born of the marriage. On April 12, 2006, a hearing was held related to the
division of property and debts, as well as issues related to the parties’ child.
At the
commencement of the hearing, appellant’s counsel announced that his client waived
corroboration of grounds. Appellant confirmed that statement at the time it was made, as well
as during his testimony.
Appellee presented only a general affirmative response to her attorney’s question as to
whether, during the course of their marriage, appellant had treated her in such a manner as to
render her condition in life intolerable. There was neither elaboration nor corroboration of that
testimony. Appellant did not object to the lack of evidence presented in support of appellee’s
alleged grounds, and he did not move for a directed verdict based on insufficient evidence
thereof.
As to the property issues, appellant presented testimony that he owned a corporation,
D & D Ventures, prior to the parties’ marriage. Appellant testified that approximately
$32,000 had been transferred into accounts jointly owned by the parties, pursuant to three
checks in the amounts of $25,000, $5,000, and $9,952.92, respectively. He testified that the
last check was to repay the marital estate for funds that had been advanced to the corporation,
and that the other $30,000 had been loans. The circuit court agreed that those transfers were
loans from the corporation. The circuit court further found that the Suburban and Impala
vehicles were jointly held marital property, but that the money used to purchase the Suburban
was traceable to appellant’s pre-marital account owned by D & D Ventures. As a result, the
circuit court awarded appellant the Suburban outright. As to the Impala, it was ordered sold,
with the first $9,000 of the sale proceeds to go to appellant to repay the other loan from the
pre-marital account used to purchase that vehicle.
-2-
This court reviews divorce cases de novo on the record. Taylor v. Taylor, __ Ark. __,
__ S.W.3d __ (Feb. 15, 2007). Moreover, we will not reverse a circuit court’s finding of fact
in a divorce case unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. A circuit court’s finding of fact in a divorce
proceeding 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. Baxley
v. Baxley, 86 Ark. App. 200, 167 S.W.3d 158 (2004).
I. Insufficient Evidence of Grounds
Appellant maintains that the decree entered by the circuit court is subject to reversal
based on the failure of appellee to prove grounds for divorce. He contends that the only
evidence she presented was a general statement reiterating the statutory language, which was
wholly conclusory and insufficient as proof of grounds. While he admits that he waived
corroboration of grounds, he cites Harpole v. Harpole, 10 Ark. App. 298, 664 S.W.2d 480
(1984), for the proposition that regardless of whether a divorce is contested or uncontested,
the injured party must always prove his or her grounds as set forth in the statute.
More recently, this court has reiterated that divorce is a creature of statute and can only
be granted upon proof of a statutory ground. See Poore v. Poore, 76 Ark. App. 99, 61 S.W.3d
912 (2001). In that case, the plaintiff’s action for divorce was also based on the ground of
general indignities. The court held that in order to obtain a divorce on that ground, the plaintiff
must show a habitual, continuous, permanent, and plain manifestation of settled hate, alienation,
and estrangement on the part of one spouse, sufficient to render the condition of the other
-3-
intolerable. Id. The court restated the type of evidence necessary to establish indignities as
a ground for divorce:
It is for the court to determine whether or not the alleged offending spouse has been
guilty of acts or conduct amounting to rudeness, contempt, studied neglect or open
insult, and whether such conduct and acts have been pursued so habitually and to such
an extent as to render the condition of the complaining party so intolerable as to justify
the annulment of the marriage bonds. This determination must be based upon facts
testified to by witnesses, and not upon beliefs or conclusions of the witnesses. It is
essential, therefore, that proof should be made of specific acts and language showing
the rudeness, contempt, and indignities complained of. General statements of witnesses
that the defendant was rude or contemptuous toward the plaintiff are not alone
sufficient. The witness must state facts-that is, specific acts and conduct from which
he arrives at the belief or conclusion which he states in general terms-so that the court
may be able to determine whether those acts and such conduct are of such nature as to
justify the conclusion or belief reached by the witness. The facts, if testified to, might
show only an exhibition of temper or of irritability probably provoked or of short
duration. The mere want of congeniality and the consequent quarrels resulting
therefrom are not sufficient to constitute that cruelty or those indignities which under
our statute will justify a divorce.
Id. at 102, 61 S.W.3d at 915 (citing Bell v. Bell, 105 Ark. 194, 150 S.W. 1031 (1912), and
holding that it is still the law that mere incompatibility is not grounds for divorce in this state).
Appellant contends, and we agree, that as in Harpole, despite his waiving corroboration
of grounds and failing to object to the sufficiency of proof of grounds at trial, appellee was
required to offer sufficient, non-conclusory proof of grounds, and she failed to do so.
Accordingly, we reverse on this point.
II. Credit for Loans Made from Pre-Marital Funds
Because we reverse the grant of the divorce decree for lack of proof of grounds, we
decline to address appellant’s issue regarding the credit granted for loans made to the marital
-4-
estate from pre-marital funds. As the parties are still married, the property issues will have to
be resolved at such time as the marriage is dissolved.
Reversed and dismissed.
M ARSHALL and M ILLER, JJ., agree.
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.