CourtListener opinion 11076318

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 411
Elizabeth Perry
I attest to the accuracy and
 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
integrity of this document DIVISION III
 No. CV-20-580
2023.07.13 11:24:22 -05'00'
2023.003.20244
 JACK WAYNE MATTHEWS Opinion Delivered October 27, 2021
 APPELLANT
 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
 COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
 V. SMITH DISTRICT
 [NO. 66FDR-99-1028]
 SHIRLEE DIANE MATTHEWS
 APPELLEE HONORABLE SHANNON L. BLATT,
 JUDGE

 AFFIRMED

 STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

 Appellant Wayne Matthews appeals the August 11, 2020 order of the Sebastian County

 Circuit Court ordering him (1) to return his two life insurance policies to their original amounts

 at the time of divorce—$250,000 and $75,000; (2) to rename his children as his beneficiaries to

 his life insurance policies and to rename his ex-wife, appellee Shirlee Burris, as a survivor

 beneficiary to his civil service retirement plan, and (3) to assist in providing Shirlee one-half of

 his military retirement benefits that she was awarded in their divorce decree and returning to

 her the past-due amounts totaling $92,977.50. We affirm.

 Wayne and Shirlee divorced in 1999 after a twenty-six-year marriage. The relevant

 orders of the divorce decree are as follows:

 9. The Court finds that the Defendant shall maintain all life insurance
 policies and survivor benefits now in effect on his life and shall name the parties
 children, Aaron and Kyle, as the sole beneficiaries thereon, and shall provide
 written proof of the same to the Plaintiff.
 10. . . . The Court finds that the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed
 that the Plaintiff is entitled to the maximum amount allowable of the Defendant's
 CSRS (Civil Service) Retirement Plan, including, but not limited to, survivor's
 benefits, earned as a result of his employment with the United States Postal
 Service and the Court will enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order
 effectuating the division thereof.

 11. The Court finds that the Plaintiff and Defendant shall divide the
 Defendant's retirement with the United States Army Reserve. The Plaintiff shall
 name the children, Aaron and Kyle, as the sole beneficiaries of the retirement
 benefits accumulated and divided by this Order. The Court shall enter a
 Qualified Domestic Relations Order dividing all retirement accounts set forth
 hereinabove.

 In 2019, twenty years after the divorce decree was entered, Shirlee filed a motion for

contempt. She alleged that Wayne had failed to comply with the circuit court's orders,

specifically, failing to name her as the recipient of survivor benefits of his civil service retirement

plan, failing to continue providing life insurance and survivor benefits and name the children as

beneficiaries, failing to provide written proof of this beneficiary designation, and failing to give

her one-half of his military retirement. Wayne denied all allegations and affirmatively pleaded

the defense of laches and statute of limitations.

 The circuit court held a hearing on Shirlee's contempt motion on July 15, 2020. By

order entered August 11, the circuit court ruled that it was not finding Wayne in contempt at

that time; however, he was ordered to comply with the parties' divorce decree. The circuit

court ordered Wayne to rename Shirlee as a survivor beneficiary of his civil service retirement

plan, rename his two children as the beneficiaries to his life insurance policies in effect at the

time of the divorce in the amounts of $250,000 and $75,000, and to provide written proof

within thirty days or be found in contempt. Wayne was further ordered to assist in providing

to Shirlee one-half of the retirement accounts she was awarded in the divorce decree. If the

money is unavailable because it has already been paid out, Wayne must reimburse her one-half

 2
 of the past-due amount totaling $92,977.50, to be paid within sixty days from the date of the

order.

 On appeal, Wayne argues that the circuit court erred by failing to apply the applicable

statute of limitations and by failing to properly consider his affirmative defense of laches. We

disagree and affirm.

 We review divorce cases de novo on the record and do not reverse a circuit court's

findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Williams v. Arnold, 2015 Ark. App. 715, 479 S.W.3d

56. Findings of fact made by the circuit court in a divorce case will be reviewed by this court

in the light most favorable to the appellee, and we will defer to the superior position of the

circuit court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. However, a circuit court's conclusion

on a question of law is given no deference on appeal. Id.

 I. Statute of Limitations

 A. Five-Year Statute of Limitations

 Wayne argues that the circuit court erred by failing to apply the five-year statute of

limitations for contracts found in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-111 (Repl. 2005). Wayne failed to

raise and obtain a ruling below on the five-year statute-of-limitations issue and, as such, has not

preserved this issue for review. It is an appellant's responsibility to obtain a ruling to preserve

an issue for appeal. TEMCO Constr., LLC v. Gann, 2013 Ark. 202, 427 S.W.3d 651.

 B. Ten-Year Statute of Limitations

 Wayne, in the alternative, asserts that the circuit court erred in not applying the ten-

year statute of limitation found in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-114 (Repl. 2005), which applies to

all judgments and decrees. We find that the ten-year statute-of-limitations issue was addressed

by the circuit court during the contempt hearing and is preserved for our review. However, we

 3
 reject Wayne's argument that the circuit court should have applied it to this case and affirm the

circuit court's order.

 Wayne contends that the statute of limitations on the life insurance and survivor benefits

began to run when he changed the beneficiaries. In 2006, Wayne elected to reduce his court-

ordered insurance by 75 percent, removed his two children as beneficiaries, added his new wife

to his life insurance policy, and changed the survivor beneficiary on his military retirement to

his current wife. He rather incredulously claims that Shirlee knew or should have known that

he began receiving his retirement in 2008 in light of their respective ages. He argues that because

Shirlee waited until 2019 to file her contempt action—ten years after the cause of action had

accrued—she is barred by the statute of limitations. Wayne believes that he has no further

obligation to keep his ex-wife or children indefinitely designated as beneficiaries of his life

insurance or any other benefits. He offers no evidence that Shirlee should have known that he

changed the beneficiaries and survivor statuses or that he was receiving retirement benefits. He

testified that he had spoken to Shirlee on only one occasion during the twenty years since their

divorce.

 Time did not begin to accrue when Wayne changed his life insurance beneficiaries.

Appellant cites Meadors v. Meadors, 58 Ark. App. 96, 946 S.W.2d 724 (1997), and Fitton v.

Fitton, CV-00-1328 (Ark. App. Sept. 12, 2001) (unpublished), 1 as support for this proposition

that the time began to run when he changed beneficiary designations in 2006. However, both

of these cases involved separate property-settlement agreements—one that had been

incorporated into the divorce decree (Meadors) and one had been adopted by the court and

 1
 Fitton is unpublished, as it was issued before July 2009 and is of no precedential value
under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 5-2(c).

 4
 made a part of the decree by reference (Fitton). This case is distinguishable because it does not

involve a property-settlement agreement. The requirements in the 1999 divorce decree did not

expire; thus, the circuit court did not err in failing to apply the ten-year statute of limitations

to Shirlee's claims. We affirm on this point.

 II. Laches

 For his final point on appeal, Wayne argues the circuit court erred by failing to properly

consider his affirmative defense of laches. Wayne raised laches as an affirmative defense in his

response to Shirlee's contempt motion and in his motion to dismiss. However, Wayne failed to

obtain a ruling from the circuit court on laches as an affirmative defense, and the circuit court

never addressed the issue of laches. Our courts will not presume a ruling from the circuit court's

silence, nor will we review a matter on which the circuit court has not ruled. Ark. Lottery

Comm'n v. Alpha Mktg., 2012 Ark. Ark. 23, 388 S.W.3d 400. Therefore, we hold that Wayne's

assertion of the laches defense is not preserved for appeal and affirm the circuit court's order.

 Affirmed.

 VAUGHT and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

 Walters, Gaston, Allison & Parker, by: Alex A. Gustafson, for appellant.

 Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellee.

 5