Arneault v. Arneault

639 S.E.2d 270 (W.Va. 2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married in 1969, and now have two adult children. The parties had been married for thirty- three years when H filed for divorce in 2002. W stayed home with the children until 1990, when she returned to work on a part-time basis as a teacher. In 1995, W started her own business as a counselor providing college placement and career consulting services to high school students. W's business did not generate great income. H is President, and Chief Executive Officer of MTR Gaming Group, Inc., which owns and controls Mountaineer Park, Inc., and operates video lottery terminals. Since 1995, H worked in Chester, West Virginia, away from the marital home. Prior to the divorce, he returned to Michigan on most weekends. H has received a lucrative income from MTR, as well as MTR stock. H owns 3,308,532 shares of MTR stock in his name; 199,333 shares of stock held by a company that is owned solely by H, and 300,000 shares held in option. MTR stock is publicly-traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The stock was acquired during the parties' marriage and is properly the subject of equitable distribution. The family court determined that because H had contributed significantly to the marital estate, a 50/50 split of the estate would be inequitable. It ordered a 35/65 division with H receiving the larger share. The court determined that the stock should be kept by H and W be paid its value in cash. To ascertain the MTR stock's value, the family court applied discount principles, which took into consideration the limitations on H's ability to sell the stock. H was ordered to pay W her share of the stock valuation at the discounted rate, over a period of ten years, at a two percent interest rate. It also valued H's oil and gas interests, which included MTR stock as one of the company assets, and again applied discount principles to the MTR stock. W appealed these adverse rulings to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed, and W appealed again.