Representative Image (AI-generated)
In Arkansas, a couple who divorced after 34 years of marriage have been involved in four appeals over the division of their business, with disagreements involving its value, outstanding taxes and payments owed to the wife. Their latest legal battle has ended with an appeals court upholding the wife’s $183,000 share of the business, along with interest dating back to the original divorce decree in 2017. In its October 28, 2026, decision in Craig Ballegeer v. Holly Ballegeer, available on Justia as 2026 Ark. 510, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order requiring Craig Ballegeer to purchase his former wife Holly’s half-interest in their marital business, Groundskeeper. US election results: Flooding forces relocation of 21 polling sites in Florida US House election: Democrats need 3-seat gain to end Republican majority US Senate election: Can Democrats flip the Senate as Trump faces crucial test? It upheld the award of 3.75% prejudgment interest from October 5, 2017, finding that Holly had been deprived of the use of her share while Craig retained and operated the business.
A divorce can end a marriage, but disputes over a jointly owned business can keep former spouses in court for years. App. The court also rejected Craig’s argument that he should receive credit for taxes he paid on behalf of both spouses.
How the business dispute continued after divorce
Craig and Holly Ballegeer ended their 34-year marriage through divorce proceedings in Crawford County, Arkansas. Their original divorce decree, entered on October 5, 2017, valued Holly’s one-half interest in Groundskeeper at $183,000. In the third appeal, decided in 2024, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed an order requiring him to purchase Holly’s interest. On December 10, 2024, the circuit court issued a letter ruling in Holly’s favour. Craig separately challenged the decision to impose 3.75% interest on Holly’s $183,000 share from October 5, 2017. The judges found that Holly’s half-interest had already been valued at $183,000 in the 2017 divorce decree. The court also noted that Groundskeeper had remained profitable and that its earnings since the divorce exceeded the value of the entire business as determined in 2017. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the January 20, 2025, order requiring Craig to purchase Holly’s half-interest for $183,000. The lower court had credited him with 47 payments of $3,500, totalling $164,500, and calculated the remaining amount due, including interest, at $37,658.61 as of February 15, 2025.
Because he had already paid a substantial portion of its value, however, she maintained that Craig should retain Groundskeeper. It therefore required Craig to purchase her one-half interest for the original valuation of $183,000. It therefore concluded that the value of Holly’s loss and the date from which she was deprived of her share could be established.
The decree also established a reverse-auction procedure to determine which former spouse would retain the business. However, disagreements over its division and the financial obligations associated with it led to repeated court proceedings. The case was sent back to the circuit court to reconsider how the business should be divided. The appeals court allowed several possibilities, including either spouse buying the other’s share, dividing the asset equally, selling the business or making an unequal distribution supported by written findings. Holly acknowledged that Craig had paid the back taxes and that she had not contributed towards them. It found that Craig had controlled and profitably operated the business during the years of litigation and received most of its income. The court concluded that reducing Holly’s property settlement to account for the taxes Craig had paid would effectively leave her with less than half of the marital property. Craig challenged the decision, arguing that the circuit court had failed to follow the instructions given in the previous appeal. He also maintained that he should receive credit for the taxes he had paid on behalf of both former spouses. It had considered the business’s value, profitability, tax liabilities and Craig’s payments before deciding how the asset should be divided. The previous ruling had allowed the circuit court to consider different methods of distributing the business. It had not required the judges to divide the tax liability equally or grant Craig the specific deduction he wanted. The appeals court also agreed that the lower court had considered the financial circumstances fairly. Since Craig had retained control of Groundskeeper and continued benefiting from its profits, reducing Holly’s share by the tax payments would have given her less than her entitled portion of the marital assets. He argued that no judgment requiring him to pay that amount existed when the original divorce decree was entered. The appeals court rejected this argument, explaining that prejudgment interest compensates a person for being deprived of money or property that should have been available to them. Craig continued operating it and receiving its profits Although the reverse-auction procedure had left open which spouse would ultimately retain the business. The circuit court was justified in awarding prejudgment interest from the original divorce date. Judge Stephanie Potter Barrett delivered the opinion, with Judges Abramson and Murphy agreeing. The decision brings another stage of the couple’s prolonged business dispute to a close. It also clarifies that a spouse who retains and profits from a jointly owned business during lengthy divorce litigation may be required to compensate the other spouse for the loss of access to their share, including through prejudgment interest. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.
Craig challenged earlier decisions concerning the business, resulting in multiple appeals. The court found that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted its earlier instructions and had failed to consider additional evidence about the business’s value and debts paid by Craig during the intervening litigation. However, the appeals court found that the lower court had followed its earlier directions.
After the case returned to the circuit court, the parties presented additional evidence at an October 29, 2024, hearing. Certified public accountant Cliff Hubbs testified that the parties’ actual tax liabilities, including penalties and interest, totalled $258,282. Hubbs calculated that Holly’s half of those liabilities was $129,141.
The proceedings examined Groundskeeper’s value and profitability, Craig’s payments towards Holly’s share and the parties’ tax liabilities. Craig had paid the entire amount.