Kristin Coleman is appealing the Baxter County Circuit Court’s decision to grant her divorce from Justin Coleman, arguing the court made errors in both the property division and child custody arrangements. Let’s break down what happened.
Background: A Marriage, a Divorce, and a DWI
The Colemans were married in 2013 and have two children together. In November 2022, Justin filed for divorce, seeking custody of their two children, one aged nine and the other just 19 months old. Kristin responded with her own divorce filing and custody request.
In July 2023, the couple seemed to reach an agreement, which was read into the court record. They agreed to a week-on, week-off joint custody arrangement, with child support calculated according to state guidelines. They would split daycare costs, Justin would provide health insurance for the children, and they’d share uncovered medical expenses.
The property agreement was more detailed. Justin would get the marital home in exchange for paying off the loan on Kristin’s Jeep, giving her $8,000 for her equity, keeping his own vehicles, a mower, and a boat. He would also assume responsibility for several joint debts, including loans and credit card balances. Kristin, on the other hand, would get miscellaneous furniture, kitchen items, and personal belongings, including televisions, and would be solely responsible for her Amazon and TJ Maxx credit cards.
However, the agreement wasn’t formally signed. Kristin drafted the agreement and sent it to Justin, but he didn’t sign it, claiming it had errors. Kristin filed the document with only her signature in September.
Then things took a turn. On September 20, Justin filed an emergency motion for custody, citing an incident involving Kristin. The court held a hearing and granted him temporary custody. The court order stated that Kristin “had a serious wreck and [was] cited for a DWI roughly an hour after dropping her children off at school.”
Kristin admitted to drinking vodka the night before and driving after having a flat tire. A coworker testified that Kristin seemed upset in the parking lot before leaving. Police were called to a single-vehicle accident at an assisted-living facility where Kristin’s mother lived. Kristin’s vehicle had hit a light pole and flipped. The officer found a broken vodka bottle and a THC vape pen in the car and charged Kristin with DWI.
The court’s temporary order emphasized that it wasn’t the court’s responsibility to get Kristin help, but that she had to take that responsbility herself. The court also expressed concern about Kristin’s lack of long-term solutions for her vehicle and transportation issues.
The Final Hearing: Property and Custody Disagreements
At the final hearing in April 2024, Kristin argued that the July agreement was no longer enforceable. Justin disagreed, believing the property provisions were still valid and that the only issue was custody. Kristin eventually agreed to the original property division “as long as [she’s] actually getting paid.”
Justin testified that he had agreed to joint custody originally, but after the wreck, he no longer trusted Kristin. He also stated that he paid off Kristin’s vehicle with the insurance proceeds and gave her $20,200 from the insurance settlement.
Kristin testified that she “did not think [she] was that drunk” the day of her wreck, even though her blood alcohol content was .228. She admitted to still drinking beer or “twisted teas” occasionally. She also testified that she obtained her medical marijuana card to treat her PTSD. Kristin also admitted to sometimes leaving her older child at the nursing home unattended.
Kristin’s therapist testified that Kristin had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and adjustment disorder. Allison, Kristin’s coworker, testified that she was unable to smell anything since having COVID, so she was uncertain whether Kristin smelled of alcohol on the day of the wreck.
The River Lodge administrator testified that she did not believe MC1 was ever left alone with Kristin’s mother. She explained Kristin’s mother has “dementia pretty bad” and can be hard to deal with, so she would have some concerns if a child was left alone with Kristin’s mother.
The Court’s Decision: Enforcing the Agreement and Granting Sole Custody
The court ultimately ruled that the original oral agreement was binding, even though it wasn’t signed by both parties. The court found that Justin had already performed much of his part of the agreement and ordered Kristin to sign a quitclaim deed for the house, at which point Justin would pay her the remaining $8,000.
More importantly, the court awarded Justin primary custody of the children. The court cited Kristin’s history with alcohol, the DWI incident, and her continued drinking as reasons for finding that joint custody was not in the children’s best interest. The court also noted that Justin had been providing for the children’s needs and paying for daycare.
The Appeal: Arguing Errors in Property Division and Custody
Kristin is now appealing the court’s decision. She argues that the court erred in modifying the oral property agreement by allowing Justin to use the insurance proceeds to pay off the vehicle. She also argues that the court erred in finding that Justin had overcome the presumption favoring joint custody.
The Court of Appeals’ Decision: Affirming the Lower Court
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that the circuit court did not err in enforcing the property agreement. The court found that Kristin’s wreck before the agreement was completed impacted its enforceability. The court further stated that Kristin mischaracterizes the court’s finding as a modification of the original agreement; rather, the court was enforcing the agreement the parties already made.
Regarding custody, the court held that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Justin rebutted the presumption for joint custody. The court emphasized that Kristin’s long, problematic history with alcohol, the DWI incident, and her continued drinking.