The Arkansas Court of Appeals has ruled in a significant divorce case, Bridget Reesnes v. Paul Reesnes, affecting the division of marital property and the rights of spouses in divorce settlements. The court's decision, delivered on May 27, 2026, reverses a lower court's ruling and mandates a more equitable distribution of marital assets, particularly concerning the couple's shared business interests.
This ruling is particularly important for Bridget Reesnes, who argued that her ex-husband, Paul Reesnes, had committed constructive fraud by failing to disclose his ownership interest in CAC Properties, LLC during their divorce proceedings in 2009. The court's decision not only impacts Bridget but also sets a precedent for how undisclosed assets are treated in divorce settlements in Arkansas.
The case has a long history, spanning multiple appeals and legal battles. Bridget and Paul Reesnes divorced in 2009, and during the divorce proceedings, Paul was represented by an attorney while Bridget was not. The property settlement agreement (PSA) drafted by Paul included a clause stating that both parties had disclosed all property. However, Paul failed to disclose his 50 percent ownership in CAC Properties, which became the crux of the legal dispute. Ten years later, Bridget discovered this omission and filed a motion to modify the divorce decree, claiming that Paul had committed constructive fraud.
The trial court initially found that Paul had indeed committed constructive fraud and attempted to award Bridget her share of the property. However, both parties appealed the order, leading to a decision in 2022 by the Arkansas Court of Appeals, known as Reesnes I. The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree but found the distribution of property inequitable and ordered a remand for further proceedings.
After the remand, the trial court issued a new ruling on December 2, 2024, awarding Bridget $318,163 for her interest in CAC Properties. However, Bridget appealed again, arguing that the trial court erred in its distribution of property, denied her request for prejudgment interest, and did not award her attorney's fees. The case then returned to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
In its recent ruling, the court agreed with Bridget on all counts. The court emphasized that the trial court had failed to follow its previous mandate to distribute Paul's interest in CAC Properties equally between the parties as of the date of their divorce. The court pointed out that Bridget was entitled to a 25 percent membership interest in CAC Properties, effective from the date of the divorce. The court stated, "To allow Paul to receive all of his interest in CAC Properties—a $360,000 value—in addition to ten plus years of dividend distributions totaling $825,000—as compared to Bridget receiving only $180,000 for her interest in CAC Properties would result in an inequitable division of marital property."
Furthermore, the court ruled that Bridget should receive prejudgment interest on her share of the distributions, as these amounts were ascertainable by mathematical computation. The court also found that the trial court had erred in denying Bridget's request for attorney's fees, stating that it was within the trial court's discretion to award fees in domestic-relations cases, especially given the circumstances of fraudulent concealment by Paul.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for domestic relations law in Arkansas. It reinforces the principle that undisclosed marital assets can lead to significant legal consequences and emphasizes the importance of full disclosure during divorce proceedings. The court's decision also highlights the need for equitable treatment of both parties in divorce settlements, particularly when one party may have been disadvantaged due to lack of representation or fraudulent actions by the other party.
Going forward, the trial court will need to implement the appellate court's ruling by awarding Bridget a 25 percent interest in CAC Properties, along with prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees. This ruling not only affects Bridget and Paul Reesnes but also serves as a cautionary tale for others navigating divorce proceedings in Arkansas.
As for the future, it is unclear whether Paul Reesnes will seek to appeal this decision to a higher court. However, as it stands, the Arkansas Court of Appeals has made a clear ruling that could influence similar cases in the state.