Opinion ID: 2764205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Marital-Home Deficiency

Text: John next contends that, because this court did not address his contention in Kelly I relating to the circuit court’s equal division of the deficiency following the sale of the marital home, the debt-on-the-marital-home issue “was placed in appellate limbo” and was not part of this court’s mandate in Kelly I. He urges that our remand was limited solely to the stock issue and, thus, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to order him to pay his portion of the marital-home deficiency within thirty days. John further claims that even if the circuit court had the jurisdiction to do so, the circuit court should have taken into consideration John’s ability to pay the amount claimed due. John’s assertion that the marital-home deficiency was left in appellate limbo is, quite simply put, mistaken. The division of property necessarily entails consideration of both the assets and the debts, as was explained in our citations to authority in the original appeal. See Kelly I, 2011 Ark. 259, 381 S.W.3d 817 (citing Hackett v. Hackett, 278 Ark. 82, 643 S.W.2d 560 (1982); Gilliam v. Gilliam, 2010 Ark. App. 137, 374 S.W.3d 108; Boxley v. Boxley, 77 Ark. App. 136, 73 S.W.3d 19 (2002)). Here, the circuit court did not reapportion the liability 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. 543 of the parties relating to the deficiency, but its order did direct that both John and Christy had “thirty (30) days to pay any sums owed the other party for alimony or in satisfaction of any deficiency.” Because the circuit court was required to reexamine the division of property pursuant to this court’s mandate, it was entitled to also consider the division of debts, including the deficiency of the marital home. While John further claims that the circuit court should have considered his ability to pay any amount due before directing the payment thereof, he cites to no authority for his proposition. That is sufficient reason not to address his ability-to-pay claim. See, e.g., Ginsburg v. Ginsburg, 359 Ark. 226, 195 S.W.3d 898 (2004). We hold that our mandate in Kelly I did not preclude the circuit court from addressing the deficiency on the marital home; therefore, we find no merit to John’s argument relating to the deficiency.