Lyle v. Lyle, CA

• Decision Date: 19 June 1985
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Citation: 15 Ark.App. 202,691 S.W.2d 188
• Parties: Linda Lou LYLE, Appellant, v. Johnny Butler LYLE, Appellee. 84-340.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 188

691 S.W.2d 188

15 Ark.App. 202

Linda Lou LYLE, Appellant, v. Johnny Butler LYLE, Appellee.

No. CA 84-340.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division II.

June 19, 1985.

Rex W. Chronister, Fort Smith, for appellant.

No brief, for appellee.

COOPER, Judge.

In this divorce case involving the division of marital property, the issue on appeal concerns the correctness of the chancellor's decision to give each party credit for that portion of the downpayment contributed by each of them toward the purchase of a residence held as tenants by the entirety. We hold that the chancellor erred.

The parties have twice married and divorced each other. In the interim between the first divorce and the subsequent remarriage, the appellee purchased two parcels of real property: an unimproved parcel of land in Little Rock and a residence in Fort Smith. After remarrying, the appellee sold both properties and, with the financial assistance of the appellant, made a downpayment on 40 acres and a house located in Sebastian County, Arkansas. It is this tract of land which is involved in the case at bar.

The chancellor granted a divorce and ordered the 40 acre homeplace sold "in accordance with Ark.Stat.Ann., Section 34-1214, except as hereinafter provided". It is undisputed that the 40 acre homeplace was held as tenants by the entirety. The division of such property is governed by Ark.Stat.Ann., Section 34-1215 (Supp.1983) rather than Section 34-1214. Warren v. Warren, 273 Ark. 528, 623 S.W.2d 813 (1981). Arkansas Statutes Annotated, Section 34-1215 (Supp.1983) is the only statutory authority for the division of tenancies by the entirety, and it provides for an equal division of such property without regard to gender or fault. Warren v. Warren, 11 Ark.App. 58, 665 S.W.2d 909 (1984). Therefore the chancellor erred in dividing that property pursuant to Section 34-1214.

In dividing the proceeds, the first $12,800.00 derived from the sale was set off to the appellee, representing the portion of the downpayment contributed from the proceeds of the sale of his Little Rock and Fort Smith properties. The appellant was awarded a credit of $1,371.31, representing her contribution to the downpayment on the 40 acres. The balance of the sale proceeds was to be divided equally between the parties.

The chancellor erred in crediting each party with the amount contributed toward the downpayment on the 40 acres. Although it is true that the respective contributions toward the downpayment came from separate funds, the 40 acres was held as tenants by the entirety. In such a situation, there arises a presumption of a gift from the party furnishing the consideration. Jones v. Wright, 230 Ark. 567, 323 S.W.2d 932 (1959). Although this presumption is rebuttable, it is a strong one. As the Arkansas Supreme Court stated in Ramsey v. Ramsey, 259 Ark. 16, 531 S.W.2d 28 (1975):

The presumption is strong, and it...