Chekuri v. Nekkalapudi

• Decision Date: 20 February 2020
• Docket Number: No. CV-18-594,CV-18-594
• Parties: Lakshminarayana CHEKURI, Appellant v. Madhuri NEKKALAPUDI, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2020 Ark. 74

593 S.W.3d 467

Lakshminarayana CHEKURI, Appellant

v.Madhuri NEKKALAPUDI, Appellee

No. CV-18-594

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: February 20, 2020

Rehearing Denied March 19, 2020

Chad M. Green, Little Rock, Green & Gillespie, Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

Jocelyn A. Stotts, Bianca G. Garcia, Victor R. Richardson, Kamps & Stotts, PLLC, for Appellee.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Lakshminarayana Chekuri appeals from the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order, which granted him a divorce from appellee Madhuri Nekkalapudi, divided the parties’ marital property, and awarded alimony to Nekkalapudi. For reversal, Chekuri argues that the circuit court erred in (1) awarding to Nekkalapudi one-half of the marital funds spent by him during the parties’ separation, (2) ordering that the marital assets be divided equally, and (3) awarding rehabilitative alimony to Nekkalapudi. We affirm and vacate the court of appeals’ opinion.

The parties entered into an arranged marriage in India on February 12, 2015, and they separated on December 27, 2015. On April 21, 2016, Chekuri filed a complaint for divorce and requested that the parties’ property rights and debt responsibilities be adjudicated. On the same day, the circuit court entered a restraining order, enjoining the parties from "selling, encumbering, mortgaging, contracting to sell, or otherwise disposing of, or removing from the jurisdiction of this Court, any of the property belonging to the parties, except in the ordinary course of business, or except by agreement of the parties, or except by the further Orders of the Court."

Nekkalapudi filed a counterclaim and two amended counterclaims for divorce, wherein she requested temporary and rehabilitative spousal support, as well as repayment for expenses associated with the parties’ wedding and/or an unequal division of the marital estate. Chekuri later amended his complaint for divorce to state that he also reserved the right to request an unequal distribution of property.

The circuit court held hearings on Nekkalapudi’s claim for temporary support on October 24 and November 28, 2016, and January 11, 2017. Nekkalapudi testified that she had attended medical school in India and received her MBS degree, which she indicated was equivalent to a Doctor of Medicine degree. She moved to Little Rock to live with Chekuri in May 2015 after the parties’ wedding and after she finished an internship. She testified that Chekuri had verbally and physically abused her beginning in June 2015.

Nekkalapudi stated that she cannot practice medicine in the United States until she completes the licensing procedure, which is composed of three steps and associated examinations followed by a three-year residency program. According to Nekkalapudi, she and Chekuri had discussed that she would be financially dependent on him until she was accepted into a residency program. She testified that she moved to Virginia to live with her parents in December 2015 because the preparatory course for the first step of the licensing examination was not offered in Arkansas. She planned to return to Arkansas in May 2016 after completion of the course but was then served with the divorce complaint.

Nekkalapudi testified that Chekuri had not supported her financially since she left for Virginia. She stated that she was currently borrowing money from her father to pay for her expenses but that she was expected to reimburse him when she obtained employment. While she received a $25,000 necklace from Chekuri when they got married, Nekkalapudi testified that her father was keeping it as collateral for the funds she had borrowed. She introduced a rehabilitation plan that listed the amount of support she needed until entering a residency program and asked for $7,600 in a lump sum for upfront costs associated with the examinations and approximately $5,500 per month for 44-56 months. Nekkalapudi indicated that it takes 10-12 months to prepare for each licensing exam.

Chekuri testified that he had been employed as a psychiatrist at Mercy Hospital in Joplin, Missouri since July 1, 2016. He stated that he had also been pursuing a doctoral degree from the University of North Texas since 2007 and that he conducted research on homelessness as part of that program. He indicated that, as with Nekkalapudi, he had to undergo medical licensing examinations and complete a residency program to become a licensed physician in this country. He testified that he underwent these examinations between 2006 and 2011. Chekuri indicated that his gross salary at the time of the temporary hearings was $250,000 per year and that his net income after taxes and retirement was $7,091.47 per bi-monthly pay period. Before July 2016, he was employed as a resident at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences ("UAMS"), and he stated that his monthly income at that time was $4,800–$5,000 per month. Chekuri admitted that he had also received a $30,000 bonus when he signed his contract with Mercy Hospital, although he testified that it would not be fully earned until he had completed two years of employment.

According to Chekuri’s October 2016 affidavit of financial means, his monthly expenses totaled $12,661.16. This included $2,100 in rent for his residences in Bella Vista, Arkansas and Joplin, Missouri; $1,800 in food; and $5,997 in "other" expenses, which he listed separately, such as $4,000 for "education and research" and $1,126 in monthly debt payments. His affidavit listed his total debt in October 2016 as $62,127.33, including a $48,200 line of credit at One Bank, and his cash on hand and in bank accounts was listed as $9,203.55. According to Chekuri, the $4,000 per month was self-funded research, which he testified was necessary for him to complete his doctoral degree.

On January 20, 2017, the circuit court entered an order awarding Nekkalapudi temporary spousal support of $2,500 per month beginning in January 2017 until further order of the court. At a review hearing on June 21, 2017, Chekuri introduced a current affidavit of financial means demonstrating that his monthly income had remained the same but that his monthly expenses had increased to $18,427.88. He attributed this increase to the spousal support and to larger payments toward his debt. The affidavit listed his current total debt as $72,135.78, with monthly payments of $5,474, and cash on hand was listed as $2,893.25. According to Chekuri, his line of credit at One Bank was opened shortly before the wedding and was used by Nekkalapudi to purchase a $25,000 gold necklace. He testified that the loan had matured in February 2017 and that he had to increase his monthly payments to $5,000 for the next several months.

Nekkalapudi testified that she had been searching for employment since January but had not been successful. She stated that she was currently working part time for her father for $500 per month and attending a preparation course for her medical-licensing exams. Although she was currently able to meet her monthly expenses, she indicated that this was because she was living with her parents, and she requested an increase in temporary alimony to $4,000.

The circuit court declined to modify alimony pending the final divorce hearing, which was held on August 3, 2017. Nekkalapudi testified at the hearing that in addition to the alimony, she was currently earning $540 per month from her employment with her father. Her current affidavit of financial means listed monthly expenses of $4,407, cash on hand of $1,240, and investments worth $440. She indicated that, although she was still living with her parents rent-free, she had to pay a portion of the utilities, in addition to her phone bill, car payment, health insurance, pet expenses, and personal-care items. Nekkalapudi further testified that she owed her father and her uncle more than $55,000 in wedding-related expenses, along with her personal debt to her father of $48,020 and credit card debt of $4,178. She stated that she had paid for the first part of her licensing exam but had not yet taken it, and she introduced a two-year match-program plan from the preparation course that she was following.

Nekkalapudi prepared a summary of each party’s assets that she alleged comprised the marital estate. According to this document, Chekuri had $176,668.60 in marital assets, in addition to his retirement accounts worth approximately $20,000, while Nekkalapudi’s assets were $1,244.92. Nekkalapudi testified that she had included Chekuri’s withdrawals from his checking accounts, which were in excess of $86,000 in 2016 alone, a vehicle that he gave to a colleague, and transfers of funds to India. She stated that there was no documentation of where he had spent the funds that he had withdrawn and that she was asking the circuit court to treat these funds as a marital asset. Nekkalapudi requested that the marital estate be distributed by awarding her the funds in her checking account, half of Chekuri’s retirement, and $87,711.84 in cash, which was one-half of Chekuri’s other assets listed on her exhibit. Nekkalapudi also introduced Chekuri’s bank statements from 2013 onward in support of her request. She stated that Chekuri had $7,000–8,000 in his accounts when the divorce complaint was filed but only $1,200 by the time of the hearing. She testified that this was unreasonable given his salary and that she believed he was either sending the money to India or was holding it in cash. With regard to spousal support, Nekkalapudi requested rehabilitative alimony of $4,400 for two years, which would cover her monthly expenses until she entered a residency program.

Chekuri’s most recent affidavit of financial means revealed that he had received a raise and was now earning more than $270,000 per year, with a bimonthly net income of $7,719.27. The affidavit reflected that Chekuri’s cash on hand was $3,895.75 and that his retirement account was worth...