Joheim v. Joheim

2022 Ark. App. 210

645 S.W.3d 363

Jessica JOHEIM, Appellant

v.Meredith JOHEIM, Appellee

No. CV-21-251

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION I.

Opinion Delivered May 11, 2022

Taylor & Taylor Law Firm, P.A., by: Andrew M. Taylor and Tasha C. Taylor, for appellant.

LaCerra, Dickson, Hoover & Rogers, PLLC, by: Traci LaCerra, North Little Rock, for appellee.

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

This appeal concerns the division of retirement accounts and the award of alimony in a divorce proceeding. Appellant Jessica Joheim asserts on appeal that the circuit court committed reversible error by awarding appellee Meredith Joheim (1) one-half of Jessica's nonmarital and nonvested retirement accounts, and (2) $3,500 a month in alimony. We affirm.

Jessica and Meredith became romantically involved in 1999. They changed their last names to "Joheim," a combination of their two surnames, before moving to Arkansas in 2000, where Jessica attended medical school. In May 2001, while in Vermont, they obtained a "Vermont License & Certificate of Civil Union." Jessica and Meredith conducted themselves as a couple, buying and selling residences, cosigning loans, and sharing bank accounts. They created health-care proxies, powers of attorney, and estate documents together. The couple have four children who were born in 2002, 2006, 2014, and 2015.¹ The women were legally married in Arkansas in May 2014. Meredith, who holds a master's degree in biological sciences, was the stay-at-home parent to the children from 2006 until shortly after the parties separated in the fall of 2018. Since their separation, the parties worked out a true joint-custody arrangement.

Meredith reentered the workforce and got a job at UAMS as a grants editor; she earns $55,550 annually. During their marriage, Meredith acquired a UAMS retirement account worth approximately $7,418.

Jessica earned her medical degree and worked as a hospitalist physician for various employers over the years and acquired and/or contributed to multiple retirement plans including a Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI) pension, a CHI 403(b) account, a Securian Financial 401(k) account associated with Arkansas Hospice, a thrift savings plan, a CHI 401(k) account, and a Fidelity account associated with Conway Regional Medical Center. Jessica might eventually, but had not yet, vested in a federal employee retirement pension (FERP) due to her ongoing work with the Veteran's (VA) Hospital.

Jessica is in her early forties and lives with a rare condition that causes spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leaks (CSF leaks). These episodes can be life threatening, and she receives treatment at Cedars Sinai Hospital in California. For seven months between 2009 and 2010, Jessica was on bed rest and underwent multiple surgeries. Jessica had purchased a disability-income policy in 2005 (nonmarital), and she purchased an additional disability-income policy in 2015 (marital). In 2018, Jessica was placed on disability because she could no longer physically tolerate full-time work as a hospitalist. Jessica works five to seven days a month at the VA hospital in Little Rock, earning $126,589 annually. Her disability benefits total $12,731 a month, although her disability status is periodically reviewed and might change if her physical ability improves. The nonmarital benefit is approximately $9,548 a month, and the marital benefit is approximately $3,183 a month.

The circuit court found that, due to the severity of Jessica's medical condition, Jessica would be awarded both her nonmarital disability-policy benefits and the marital disability-policy benefits. Each party was ordered to be responsible for medical bills and debts in their individual names, which was in keeping with what the parties had agreed in the temporary order pending divorce. The circuit court noted that Jessica's medical-school student-loan debt was incurred prior to the marriage, so that was Jessica's nonmarital debt.

The circuit court made the following findings regarding alimony:

I have great discretion with respect to determining the specific monetary amount of an alimony award. The purpose of alimony is to "rectify the economic imbalance in earning power and standard of living of the parties to a divorce in light of the particular facts of each case." Cherry v. Cherry , 2020 Ark. App. 294, 603 S.W.3d 585 (2020) (citing Farrell v. Farrell , 2017 Ark. App. 7, at 7-8, 510 S.W. 3d 787, 792 (2017) ).

The financial need of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay are the primary factors to consider when determining whether alimony should be awarded. Other factors to be considered include: the financial circumstances of both parties; the couple's past standard of living; the value of jointly owned property; the amount and nature of the income, both current and anticipated, of both parties; the extent and nature of the resources and assets of each party; the amount of each party's spendable income; the earning ability and capacity of both parties; the disposition of the homestead or jointly owned property; the condition of health and medical needs of the parties; and the duration of the marriage. Dozier v. Dozier , 2014 Ark. App. 78, 432 S.W.3d 82 (2014) [.]

Plaintiff [Meredith] and Defendant [Jessica] have become accustomed to a certain lifestyle, a lifestyle made possible by Defendant's income as a physician. As noted earlier, Plaintiff remained outside the workforce for several years to be a stay at home parent. Plaintiff also contributed to the parties’ relationship by enabling Defendant to attend medical school once they had made the joint decision that she would. Although it is true that I cannot use the Vermont Civil Union as the date of the parties’ marriage, I do take into account the length of their time together as a couple. Based on the length of their relationship, the plans they made together concerning children, estates, comingling of assets, and medical school, I order Defendant to pay alimony to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff worked while Defendant was in medical school. Plaintiff was a stay-at-home parent for many years. Defendant, even with her disability has better earnings and likely, better earning capacity than Plaintiff will ever have. Plaintiff remained outside the workforce for several years. Upon her return to the workforce, she began earning far less than the Defendant earns. At age fifty-one (51), her opportunities for advancement are limited. Plaintiff earns fifty-five thousand five hundred fifty dollars and four cents ($55,550.04) in gross annual income. Defendant, even while working only five to seven days a [month] at the VA earns one hundred twenty-six thousand five hundred eighty-eight dollars and eighty cents ($126,588.80) in gross annual income. Combined with Defendant's disability payments, her annual pay is two hundred seventy-nine thousand three hundred fifty-eight dollars and four cents ($279,358.04), some five times higher than that of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff operates on a deficit each month while Defendant has a significant surplusage at the end of each month. Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the amount of three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00) per month in alimony until the death of either party, the remarriage [or functional equivalent of remarriage or romantic cohabitation] of the Plaintiff, or the cessation of Defendant's disability benefits.

The circuit court also recited in a footnote to the alimony provision that if Jessica lost employment due to her disability, then the alimony issue would have to be revisited.

The circuit court took great care to point out that, although it would prefer to use the date of the Vermont civil union in 2001 as the date of the marriage for purposes of dividing the property as Meredith had requested, it was "constrained by Arkansas law to use the date of the Arkansas marriage."

Jessica retained the marital residence and was ordered to pay Meredith $16,524 as her half of the equity, minus $3,753 that Meredith owed Jessica on some expenses related to the children. The circuit court permitted Meredith to retain the entire value of the marital vehicle that she kept, a 2015 Honda Odyssey worth $9,002. The parties agreed to continue to split the costs associated with their oldest daughter's 2018 Kia Optima, and Jessica continued to be responsible for the vehicle she leased, a 2019 Honda Odyssey. The parties had four bank accounts (checking, savings, and money-market accounts) that were collectively valued around $30,000, which the circuit court evenly divided.

The circuit court made the following findings on division of the parties’ retirement, pension, and financial accounts:

I make an equal division of the parties’ retirement accounts and financial accounts. To the extent that some of the values in these accounts may have accrued prior to the marriage in Arkansas, and are thus

...