## Facts

- Edson R. Arneault filed for divorce from Margaret Beth Arneault after a 33-year marriage and two children.
- For much of the marriage, Margaret Beth was a homemaker and primary caregiver; as the children grew older, she worked part-time as a teacher and later operated a full-time counseling business in Michigan focused on college-placement and career counseling.
- Edson was chairman, president, and CEO of MTR Gaming Group, Inc., a company tied to Mountaineer Park, Inc., and video-lottery operations in West Virginia.
- Evidence showed Edson was largely responsible for MTR’s growth and financial success and received a high salary and more than three million shares of MTR stock during the marriage.
- Before the separation, Edson worked in West Virginia but usually returned to Michigan on weekends.
- In equitable distribution, the family court treated the MTR stock as marital property but declined to distribute it in kind, citing restrictions and related concerns, and instead structured a discounted, long-term payout to Margaret Beth.
- The family court awarded Edson 65% and Margaret Beth 35% of the marital estate, reasoning that an equal split was not appropriate given Edson’s financial role in building the estate.
- The Circuit Court of Hancock County affirmed, and Margaret Beth appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

## Issues

1. Whether West Virginia’s equitable-distribution law allowed a 65/35 split of the marital estate based largely on the husband’s superior economic contribution in a long-term marriage where the wife’s contributions were mainly domestic and non-monetary.
2. Whether the family court erred by refusing to distribute the marital MTR stock in kind and instead ordering a discounted, extended buyout.
3. Whether the valuation and payment structure for the wife’s share of the stock produced a fair division of marital property.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court’s order affirming the family court.
- The court held the lower courts abused their discretion by approving a materially unequal 65/35 distribution primarily justified by the husband’s economic contribution, rather than applying the presumption of equal division and giving proper weight to the wife’s non-monetary contributions.
- The court directed an equal (50/50) division of the marital estate.
- The court required an in-kind distribution of the MTR stock, rejecting the discounted, long-term payout approach where the stated reasons for withholding stock from the wife were not supported by the record.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- West Virginia equitable distribution starts from a presumption that marital property should be divided equally; a departure from 50/50 requires specific findings that justify the result.
- A spouse’s non-monetary contributions—such as homemaking and childrearing—must be treated as contributions to the marriage and to the accumulation of marital property, especially in a long marriage.
- A court may not justify a major departure from equal division solely by pointing to one spouse’s higher earnings or business success during the marriage.
- When marital property includes stock, an in-kind distribution is appropriate where feasible; substituting a discounted, long-term cash payout can improperly reduce and delay the non-holding spouse’s share.
- Appellate review of equitable-distribution rulings examines whether the lower tribunal acted within its discretion; an order that misapplies the equal-division baseline or lacks record support may be reversed.

## Conclusion

Arneault v. Arneault held that the lower courts abused their discretion by awarding the husband 65% of the marital estate based mainly on his economic contribution and by forcing the wife to accept a discounted, long-term cash substitute for her share of marital stock. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed and required a 50/50 division of the marital estate, including an in-kind distribution of the MTR Gaming stock, and remanded for implementation consistent with those directions.


Arneault v. Arneault, 639 S.E.2d 720 (2006)