Arneault v. Arneault
219 W. Va. 628, 639 S.E.2d 720 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under West Virginia's equitable distribution statute, non-monetary contributions such as homemaker and child care services are valued equally with monetary contributions, and the statutory presumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets is not overcome merely by one spouse's extraordinary financial success. An in-kind distribution of publicly-traded stock is the preferred method of dividing a business interest when there are no other marital assets of comparable value.
Facts:
- Margaret Beth Arneault and Edson R. Arneault were married on July 12, 1969, and had two children.
- During the 33-year marriage, Mrs. Arneault was primarily a homemaker and parent, returning to part-time work in 1990 and later starting a small consulting business with modest income.
- Mr. Arneault became the Chairman, President, and CEO of MTR Gaming Group, Inc. (MTR), a publicly-traded company, and was credited with its great financial success.
- Beginning in 1995, Mr. Arneault worked in West Virginia during the week while the marital home and Mrs. Arneault remained in Michigan.
- During the marriage, Mr. Arneault acquired over 3.3 million shares of MTR stock, representing approximately 13.25% of the company, which constituted the largest asset of the marital estate.
- Mr. Arneault also acquired interests in several oil and gas companies during the marriage.
- The parties denominated December 20, 2002, as their date of separation.
Procedural Posture:
- Edson R. Arneault filed for divorce from Margaret Beth Arneault in the Family Court of Hancock County.
- The family court granted the divorce and, in its equitable distribution order, divided the marital estate 65% to Mr. Arneault and 35% to Mrs. Arneault.
- The family court ordered that Mr. Arneault would retain all MTR stock and pay Mrs. Arneault her 35% share of its discounted value over ten years at a 2% interest rate.
- Mrs. Arneault, as appellant, appealed the family court's final order to the Circuit Court of Hancock County.
- The Circuit Court of Hancock County entered an order affirming the family court’s rulings.
- Mrs. Arneault, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, with Mr. Arneault, as appellee, filing a cross-assignment of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a family court abuse its discretion by ordering an unequal (35/65) division of a marital estate based on one spouse's extraordinary financial contributions, where the other spouse provided substantial non-monetary homemaker services, and by awarding a discounted cash payout for a large stock holding instead of an in-kind distribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, C.J.
Yes, a court abuses its discretion by ordering an unequal division of the marital estate under these circumstances. The law presumes an equal division of marital property, and this presumption can only be altered by considering specific statutory factors. The family court erred by undervaluing Mrs. Arneault's substantial non-monetary contributions as a homemaker and parent, which are to be valued equally with Mr. Arneault's monetary contributions under West Virginia precedent like Mayhew v. Mayhew. Mr. Arneault's 'innate abilities' or exceptional financial success do not rebut the presumption of an equal split, especially when his success was enabled by Mrs. Arneault's contributions to the home and family. Furthermore, W. Va. Code § 48-7-105 prefers an in-kind distribution of business interests. Because the MTR stock is the largest marital asset and there are no other assets of comparable value, an in-kind split of the stock is the only way to achieve an equitable distribution, rather than a discounted cash payout over ten years.
Dissenting - Maynard, J.
No, the family court did not err in splitting the marital estate 35/65. The unequal distribution was equitable because Mr. Arneault's contributions were overwhelmingly responsible for the couple's wealth, while Mrs. Arneault was not a 'corporate spouse' and did not substantially assist in his business success. The majority's order for an in-kind distribution of MTR stock is inappropriate because it fails to consider the negative effect on the business entity as required by statute. Halving the CEO's stake in the company could cause the stock's value to plummet and create corporate instability, jeopardizing the company, its employees, and other stockholders.
Dissenting - Starcher, J.
No, the family court's decision was well-supported by the evidence and should be affirmed. The majority incorrectly applies a 'community property' standard in an 'equitable distribution' state, where relative contributions matter. The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Arneault's efforts were extraordinary and Mrs. Arneault's contributions to the acquisition of the wealth were negligible, as the couple lived largely separate lives for over a decade. The family court properly applied the statutory factors in W.Va. Code § 48-7-103 to rebut the presumption of equal division, and its finding that a 35/65 split was equitable was not an abuse of discretion.
Concurring - Benjamin, J.
Yes, the majority is correct, and I write to emphasize that the dissenters' view is archaic and contrary to established state law. West Virginia law explicitly requires that non-monetary contributions like homemaker and childcare services be valued equally with monetary contributions. Mrs. Arneault's work at home provided the foundation that enabled Mr. Arneault's professional success. An in-kind distribution is the only truly equitable outcome because there are no other assets of comparable value to substitute for the stock. The dissent's fear of corporate doomsday is speculative and ignores Mrs. Arneault's own financial interest in preserving the stock's value.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle that non-monetary contributions of a homemaker are valued equally with the monetary contributions of a high-earning spouse, even in cases involving extraordinary wealth. It limits the discretion of family courts to deviate from the 50/50 statutory presumption, clarifying that one spouse's unique business acumen or success is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for an unequal distribution. The ruling also establishes a strong preference for in-kind distribution of publicly-traded stock when it is the primary marital asset, ensuring that the non-titled spouse receives the actual asset rather than a potentially inequitable long-term cash payout.
Unlock the full brief for Arneault v. Arneault