Bridget Reesnes v. Paul Reesnes

── Bridget Reesnes v. Paul Reesnes ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 356 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISIONS I & II No. CV-25-64 Opinion Delivered May 27, 2026 BRIDGET REESNES APPEAL FROM THE WHITE APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 73DR-09-437] V. HONORABLE DANIEL C. BROCK, PAUL REESNES JUDGE APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge This is the third appeal in this domestic-relations case, and the issues on appeal pertain to the division of CAC Properties, LLC (CAC Properties), which is a marital asset that appellee Paul Reesnes omitted in the parties’ property settlement agreement (PSA) and was not divided upon their divorce in 2009. Ten years after the divorce decree was entered, appellant Bridget Reesnes filed a motion to modify the divorce decree alleging that Paul had committed constructive fraud in failing to disclose his ownership interest in CAC Properties during the divorce proceedings. On May 4, 2020, the trial court entered an order finding that Paul had committed constructive fraud in failing to disclose the property upon divorce and endeavored to award Bridget her equal share of the property. Both parties appealed from that order, and in Reesnes v. Reesnes (Reesnes I), 2022 Ark. App. 462, 655 S.W.3d 722 (2022), we held that the trial court correctly found it had jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree but that the trial court’s distribution of the property was inequitable and must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After our remand, the trial court entered a nonfinal interlocutory order from which Bridget appealed, and that appeal was dismissed by this court without prejudice on November 9, 2023. After our dismissal of the second appeal, the trial court entered a final judgment on December 2, 2024, that awarded Bridget $318,163 for her interest in the property. Bridget now appeals from the December 2, 2024 order. Bridget argues that the trial court erred in its distribution of CAC Properties, erred in denying her request for prejudgment interest, and erred in denying her request for attorney’s fees. We agree with each of these arguments, and we reverse and remand. I. Introduction During the divorce proceedings in 2009, Paul was represented by an attorney while Bridget was not. The PSA drafted by Paul and his attorney, which was incorporated into the divorce decree, provided, inter alia, that “Husband and Wife agree that it is the intention of the Husband and Wife that this Agreement constitutes a full and complete settlement of all property rights, both real, personal and mixed, occurring to them by reason of said marriage.” The divorce decree signed by the parties provides that “each party hereby warrants and affirms that each of them has disclosed any and all property, whether marital or not, to the other party.” Let’s be clear—as found by the trial court—Paul committed constructive fraud when he omitted CAC Properties from the PSA, which he and his attorney drafted and 2 filed.1 Paul defrauded his wife, his attorney,2 and the trial court. Paul continued his fraud when, within a few months of entering into the PSA and filing the divorce decree, he received $100,000 in dividend distributions from CAC Properties and, over the course of the next ten years, when he continued to receive, at a minimum, an additional $725,000 in dividend distributions, none of which were shared with his now ex-wife. In Reesnes I, in an unusual 6–0 six-judge opinion, we c