The Arkansas Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision regarding the division of assets between Craig and Holly Ballegeer following their divorce. This ruling, delivered on October 28, 2026, is significant as it marks the fourth appeal in their lengthy legal battle, which has spanned several years and multiple court decisions. The court's decision affects how marital assets are divided in divorce cases, particularly concerning business interests and financial liabilities.

The dispute centers on the division of the couple's business, Groundskeeper, and the financial obligations stemming from their divorce. Craig Ballegeer appealed the Crawford County Circuit Court's January 20, 2025, final order, which required him to purchase Holly's half interest in the business for $183,000. This case has drawn attention due to the complexities involved in valuing marital assets and the implications for future divorce settlements.

Craig and Holly Ballegeer were married for thirty-four years before their divorce. Their case has involved multiple appeals, with the most recent ruling coming after the court previously reversed a decision regarding the business's valuation and the division of debts. The Arkansas Court of Appeals had previously mandated that the circuit court consider additional evidence regarding the value of Groundskeeper and the debts incurred during the marriage. The case was reassigned to Judge Michael Medlock, who had initially presided over their divorce.

The procedural history of the Ballegeer case is complex. In a previous ruling, Ballegeer v. Ballegeer, 2024 Ark. App. 190, the court found that the circuit court had incorrectly interpreted its mandate, leading to a reversal of its earlier decision. The appellate court instructed the lower court to reassess the evidence concerning the business's value and the parties' financial obligations. Following this directive, the circuit court held a hearing to evaluate the business's worth and the tax liabilities incurred by both parties.

During the remand hearing, Craig presented evidence showing he had paid significant tax liabilities related to Groundskeeper. However, the court determined that reducing Holly's property settlement based on these payments would not provide her with a fair share of the marital property. Ultimately, the circuit court ordered Craig to purchase Holly's interest in the business for the previously established value of $183,000, crediting him for payments made but not for the tax liabilities he had covered.

The court ruled that the circuit court had complied with its mandate in the previous appeal. "The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing concerning Groundskeeper’s value and profitability, the parties’ tax liabilities, Craig’s payment of those liabilities, and the payments Craig made toward Holly’s interest," the opinion stated. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that it followed the required procedures and considered all relevant evidence.

Additionally, the court addressed Craig's challenge regarding the award of 3.75 percent interest on the $183,000 valuation of Holly's interest in Groundskeeper, which began accruing from the date of their original divorce decree in 2017. Craig argued that no judgment existed at that time requiring him to pay Holly, and therefore, interest should not have begun to accrue. However, the court ruled that prejudgment interest was appropriate in this case.

The court explained, "Prejudgment interest compensates an injured party for the loss of the use of money or property from the time of the loss until judgment." The court found that the value of Holly's interest was ascertainable at the time of the divorce, and since Craig had retained control of the business and profited from it, the interest award was justified. The court stated, "The relevant loss here was Holly’s loss of the use of her interest in Groundskeeper while Craig retained and profited from the business during the years of litigation."

This ruling has important implications for future divorce cases, particularly those involving business interests. It reinforces the principle that courts must consider the equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, ensuring that both parties receive a fair share of the marital property. The decision also clarifies the circumstances under which prejudgment interest can be awarded, providing guidance for similar cases in the future.

Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Craig Ballegeer will seek to appeal this latest ruling. The court's decision appears to close this chapter of the Ballegeer divorce saga, but the possibility of further legal action remains. The ongoing legal disputes in this case highlight the complexities of asset division in divorce proceedings and the importance of clear legal mandates.