Surya Janjam v. Gosike Raja Rajeshwari

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 448
Reason: I attest to the accuracy
and integrity of this document
Date: 2021-07-12 14:12:05
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION III
9.7.5
No. CV-19-728

SURYA JANJAM Opinion Delivered September 30, 2020

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 04DR-17-1983]

HONORABLE JOHN R. SCOTT,
GOSIKE RAJA RAJESHWARI JUDGE

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

MEREDITH B. SWITZER, Judge

Surya Janjam (“Surya”) and Gosike Raja Rajeshwari (“Raja”) were divorced on May

30, 2019, by order of the Benton County Circuit Court. On appeal, Surya contends the

circuit court clearly erred in four respects: (1) granting Raja a divorce based on the ground

of general indignities; (2) not granting joint custody of the parties’ minor child; (3) awarding

retroactive child support; and (4) awarding Raja an unequal division of marital property.

We affirm on all points.

I. Facts

The parties married on December 25, 2014, and have a son, EJ, who was born on

August 13, 2016. The parties separated on December 15, 2017. Raja filed her complaint

for divorce, alleging general indignities, on December 18, 2017. 1 EJ was undergoing

1
In her original complaint, Raja alleged Surya had absconded with EJ out of the
country (both parties are from India)and refused to bring EJ back into the country for
extended periods of time or to notify Raja of his whereabouts. On the basis of Raja’s
treatments for leukemia at that time. On December 27, the parties entered into an agreed

temporary order giving Raja primary custody with Surya having visitation either supervised

by Raja’s parents or taking place at Raja’s home. They agreed to travel to Little Rock

together for EJ’s leukemia treatments; for Surya to continue paying health-insurance

premiums and any out-of-pocket medical expenses for EJ; and for Surya to pay $350 a

month toward Raja’s rent beginning in January 2018. The temporary order further

provided that “the issue of child support is reserved for the final hearing. That this amount

of child support is a deviation from the child support chart due to [Surya] paying 100% of

all medical expenses because of the child’s illness.”

In February 2018, Raja moved to modify the temporary order asking for Surya’s

visitation take place in a public location because her parents were no longer in the United

States and could not supervise visitation. Surya requested the temporary order be modified

to joint custody of EJ because he was capable of caring for EJ without supervision.

A second temporary order, filed on May 22, kept temporary custody with Raja and

modified Surya’s visitation to alternating weekends. The parties were also ordered to list

the marital home for sale. This order further provided, “[Surya] shall continue paying

support of $350.00 per month as well as the medical expenses for the child per the initial

Temporary Order pending a final hearing in this matter.”

divorce petition, the circuit court entered an ex parte order on December 19 vesting
temporary custody in Raja and granting Surya reasonable supervised visitation. Raja later
amended her complaint to clarify that while EJ was in Raja’s parents’ custody in India,
Surya’s parents had taken him and refused to return EJ to either Raja or her parents.
2
On May 24, Raja filed a motion requesting an increase in spousal support because

she lost her job due to her immigration status because Surya refused to turn over the

necessary papers for her to renew her visa. Surya objected, but the circuit court ordered

Surya to pay Raja $650 for the month of August.

The testimony at the final hearing revealed the following: Raja moved from India

to Houston after she and Surya married. They then moved to Bentonville in August 2015

for Surya to work at Walmart. She was concerned Surya was having an affair with an ex-

girlfriend because he regularly locked himself in the bathroom or bedroom and called her.

She also found what she described as “vulgar” photos of the ex-girlfriend on Surya’s cell

phone; when she confronted Surya, he accused her of violating his privacy.

Raja also testified that the couple had financial disputes. She said that Surya held a

second job, but she performed all the duties for that job; she responded to emails for him,

logged into meetings as him, and reported the meeting details back to him. When she

became pregnant and was unable to keep up with the work, Surya lost the second job and

blamed her for the loss of income. According to Raja, Surya pressured her to obtain

employment; she began working for Walmart in March 2016 and worked until one week

before she delivered EJ.

Surya handled all the finances, including Raja’s income. When she asked about his

income, he told her she did not need to know how much money he made and needed to

worry only about how much money she made. He required her to be transparent about her

finances, but he did not have to reciprocate, and Raja was not to question him. When

Surya learned that Raja had changed her bank-account password, Surya became angry and

3
told Raja, who was pregnant at the time, that she had to buy her own groceries, make her

own meals, sleep by herself, and pay her own living expenses. She was told that if she

wanted to live with him, she had to give him her money. She also recalled a time during

her pregnancy when Surya was going out of town, refused to leave the house keys with her,

and told her she had to stay out of the house. It was only when she threatened to call the

police that Surya relented and left the keys behind.

According the Raja, Surya began pressuring her to return to work two months after

EJ was born. When she told Surya that she would stay home with EJ, he told her that she

would have to go back to India with EJ because it was too difficult for him to take care of

them both. Raja returned to India with EJ and lived with her parents for six months. During

that time, Raja’s parents supported her and EJ; Surya gave her no money. Surya took Raja

and EJ to India and left them at her parents’ home. He claimed he was going on a business

trip, but when he returned, Raja detected a change in his behavior, and she discovered

photos and social-media posts about Surya’s being with his girlfriend.

Raja returned to the United States in July 2017 and began working for Walmart. EJ

remained in India with her parents until October 2017, when her father brought EJ back to

the United States and stayed to care for him until February 2018. Her father returned to

Arkansas again from October to December 2018 to assist Raja with EJ. Raja testified that

to her knowledge, Surya had never sent any money to her father to assist in EJ’s care. He

did, however, send about $40,000 to his family during that same time frame and did not tell

her he was sending the money.

4
Raja recounted that her paycheck was deposited into a joint account, but Surya’s

paycheck was not always deposited into the joint account; she later learned he was depositing

sums from his paycheck into an account solely in his name. She said that $51,000 was

transferred from her account to Surya’s account, but Surya never transferred any money

from his account to her account.

Raja also testified that in September 2017, she told Surya she would call the police

if he tried to separate her from EJ, and he locked her cell phone in the bedroom. When

she told him that she knew about his affair and only stayed with him for EJ, Surya hit her

in the face, choked her, and kicked her off the bed. When she decided to file for divorce,

Surya refused to timely provide her with her work visa, passport, and documentation needed

to renew her visa; as a result, she lost her job.

EJ was diagnosed with leukemia in November 2017; he was currently in a

maintenance phase, requiring weekly labs and monthly treatments; and while she usually

took him for those appointments, Surya took him if she had to work. She testified she paid

approximately $800 a month for daycare, but EJ had not been going recently due to his

illness. Raja stated EJ was sometimes sick when he returned from visitation. She explained

that she did not take EJ to crowded places or out in bad weather due to his leukemia and

tried to keep him on a schedule. She had asked Surya to take the same precautions, but

when she tried to address her concerns with Surya, he told her that he was taking care of

EJ. Raja did not believe Surya prioritized EJ’s health during visitation, and he did not give

EJ the proper doses of medication during visitation. When she saw Surya out without EJ

during his visitation and inquired where EJ was, Surya told her not to ask him “stupid”

5
questions. Raja acknowledged that she and Surya had spent more time together with EJ

since February 2019, and he was happy with both of them; they attempted a reconciliation

because, according to Raja, she thought it would be good for EJ to have his father around,

but the attempt was unsuccessful because the same problems were present. Raja testified

Surya made her condition in life intolerable because he did not value her, instead choosing

his parents and brother over her; he would keep secrets from her; he controlled all of the

finances and refused to share that information with her; and he told her that if she did not

contribute financially to the family, she was no longer his wife and needed to leave.

When asked about Surya’s separate bank account and its balance at the time of

separation, Raja first testified that there was $60,000 in Surya’s separate bank account at the

time of the separation, but she later testified that the amount was around $50,000. Raja

admitted that she also had a personal bank account and had made some purchases using that

account, including plane tickets for her parents, but she said that she always had to answer

to Surya about how she spent her money. She said that at the time of separation, she had

about $9000 in her account. When she separated from Surya, she took about $2300 of the

$3000 remaining in the joint account, but she said Surya had previously taken $12,000 out

of the joint account.

Raja asked the circuit court to order retroactive child support. Surya’s attorney

objected stating the December 27, 2017 agreed temporary order addressed child support

and required Surya to pay all of EJ’s medical bills. Raja’s counsel argued that the evidence

indicated that the medical bills were covered almost entirely by insurance, so Surya was not

paying nearly the amount of medical bills he led Raja to believe. The circuit court initially

6
declined to admit any evidence regarding back child support but later reversed that decision

stating the initial temporary order had specifically reserved the issue of child support.

Nagabhooshanan Rajeshwari, Raja’s father, testified he had visited Surya and Raja

three times during their marriage. During his first visit, he witnessed how Raja and Surya

interacted with each other. He expressed concern about how Surya treated Raja, noting

he had to intervene twice when Surya tried to “manhandle” Raja. He said Surya avoided

Raja, and the only way the two communicated was in anger. Raja’s father said he never

saw Surya help with EJ, and Surya had asked him on at least fifty occasions to take Raja and

EJ back to India with him. He said that when he had supervised Surya’s visitation, Surya

did not know how to feed EJ or to give him medication. It was his opinion that EJ should

remain in Raja’s custody.

During Raja’s case-in-chief, Surya testified he had received a $3000 tax refund for

2017 but gave Raja none of that money; he had a savings account and claimed the balance

at separation was about $10,000; and on December 8, 2017, his checking account had a

balance of $19,574, on January 10, 2018, the balance was $51,364, and as of the date of the

hearing, the balance was $30,000. Surya asserted that he had $18,348 in his checking

account when they married, and at the time of separation, there was “a little bit more” than

$50,000 combined in his checking and savings accounts. He said his 401(k) was valued at

$87,000, but $22,000 was premarital. Surya said his take-home pay was about $2700

biweekly.

Surya denied that he controlled Raja’s finances, pointing to the fact that they both

had their own personal checking accounts. He noted that he had opened a joint checking

7
account at Raja’s request after he had asked her to share the financial responsibilities, but he

claimed that only $4000 of the $20,000 in total household bills from August to December

2017 was paid from the joint account; the remainder was paid by him. Surya claimed that

Raja contributed only $3840 to household expenses during the marriage.

Surya testified he paid for EJ’s medical insurance through his employer and with Tax

Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) Medicaid coverage, which costs

approximately $500 a month. While there was initially approximately $14,000 in medical

bills, Surya admitted those bills had been paid in full by TEFRA back to the initial diagnosis,

and he had only had to pay for some medication. Surya denied he had not spent money on

EJ’s behalf, noting he had purchased clothes and toys and had paid $350 in monthly child

support. He claimed to have spent between $14,000 and $16,000 for EJ’s support since the

separation. Surya asked for full custody of EJ but wanted joint custody if that request was

not granted, stating he believed he and Raja could communicate well enough to share

custody.

Surya admitted that since the separation, he had returned to India and filed a court

action to require Raja to return home and resume her marital relationship. He explained

that the Hindu marriage act allowed for the restoration of conjugal rights. He estimated

that he sent approximately $35,000 to his parents in India during the marriage, and $20,000

to $25,000 during the separation. He explained that his father is retired, his sister was not

married, his parents were actively seeking a husband for his sister, and marriages cost a lot

of money in India. He claimed that he consulted Raja when he sent money to his parents.

He also admitted that he gave his brother $3000 when his niece was born.

8
Surya claimed Raja had always been knowledgeable about their various financial

accounts, but he admitted he had not told Raja about a $20,000 after-tax bonus he received

in 2018 because they were separated by then and no longer discussed finances. He denied

transferring money from Raja’s account to his account and claimed Raja was the one who

made the transfers. He said that when he and Raja were living together, his income was

$2,425.05 biweekly, and he was currently making $2900 biweekly.

In his case-in-chief, Surya denied that he made Raja’s life intolerable, controlled all

the finances, forced Raja to return to work, or locked her out of the house while she was

pregnant. He stated that he had sent about $30,000 to his family in India during the

separation but had also been paying $350 in monthly child support to Raja during that time.

In closing arguments, the attorney ad litem stated that on the basis of her review of

many documents in the case, home visits, and conferences with the parents, she believed

that Raja has been EJ’s primary caregiver during the marriage and especially after the

separation. While acknowledging that both parents had been very active in EJ’s leukemia

treatments, she opined that Surya had shown a disregard for EJ’s welfare by not providing

enough money to properly care for his needs considering he was paying temporary support

below chart amount only because he was required to pay the medical bills, but in actuality

the medical bills had been paid nearly in full by insurance. The attorney ad litem

acknowledged that Surya cared for EJ well when he had EJ but because he was giving Raja

only limited support each month, she believed the financial constraint was forcing Raja to

return to him, and that was not in EJ’s best interest. The attorney ad litem recommended

that EJ’s custody remain with Raja subject to Surya’s visitation.

9
A divorce decree was entered on May 30, 2019. Raja was granted a divorce on the

ground of general indignities and was awarded primary custody of EJ with Surya receiving

standard visitation. Surya was ordered to pay $495.80 biweekly in child support, which was

based on his current biweekly income of $3312 as well as 15 percent of any future bonuses,

less deductions for taxes. Additionally, the circuit court found Raja was entitled to receive

child support from the date of separation through the final hearing and ordered Surya to pay

back child support in the amount of $9565.60. The circuit court arrived at this figure by

multiplying the $405.80 biweekly amount of support by thirty-two biweekly periods

(December 2017 through May 2019). This calculation equaled $15,865.60 for that period

of time, and Surya was given credit for the eighteen monthly payments of $350, or $6300,

leaving a balance of back child support of $9565.60. Surya was ordered to maintain health

insurance and TEFRA Medicaid coverage for EJ as well as pay for any and all out-of-pocket

medical expenses not covered by EJ’s health insurance. The circuit court further ordered

division of certain marital property. Surya filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. Standard of Review

Our court reviews domestic-relations cases de novo, but we will not reverse the

circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Doss v. Doss, 2018 Ark. App. 487,

561 S.W.3d 348. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support

it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that

a mistake has been committed. Id. Due deference is given to the circuit court’s superior

position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.

Id.

10
III. Grounds for Divorce—General Indignities

Surya first argues the circuit court erred in granting Raja a divorce on the ground of

general indignities. Divorce is a statutory creation and may be granted only upon proof of

a ground listed in the statute. Lundy v. Lundy, 2014 Ark. App. 573, 445 S.W.3d 518. One

ground for dissolving the bonds of matrimony is when either party “shall offer such

indignities to the person of the other as shall render his or her condition intolerable.” Ark.

Code Ann. § 9-12-301(b)(3)(C) (Repl. 2015). To obtain a divorce on the basis of general

indignities, a plaintiff “must show a habitual, continuous, permanent, and plain

manifestation of settled hate, alienation, and estrangement on the part of one spouse,

sufficient to render the condition of the other intolerable.” Lundy, 2014 Ark. App. 573, at

2, 445 S.W.3d at 520. Theses manifestations may consist of rudeness, unmerited reproach,

contempt, studied neglect, and open insult; however, mere uncongeniality and

quarrelsomeness, without more, are insufficient to sustain an accusation of general

indignities. Id. In contested divorce cases, the grounds for divorce must be corroborated

unless specifically waived in writing, but the evidence of corroboration need only be slight,

and it is unnecessary to corroborate every element or essential fact of the complaining

spouse’s testimony. Coker v. Coker, 2012 Ark. 383, 423 S.W.3d 599.

The circuit court specifically found Surya had offered such indignities toward Raja

so as to “render her condition intolerable, including but not limited to, [Surya’s] having

private phone conversations with his girlfriend within the bounds of matrimony, exercising

financial control over [Raja] and perpetuating financial deceit as to the disbursement of

funds, and exhibiting a total disdain for [Raja].” Surya claims there was no testimony as to

11
how his alleged conversations with his ex-girlfriend cause Raja’s life to become intolerable,

and there was insufficient evidence to find that he exercised financial control over Raja or

had deceived her regarding the disbursement of marital funds. He further asserts that he

asked Raja who she was to question him, and this one-time statement, while it might be

quarrelsome, did not rise to the level of settled hate, alienation, and estrangement.

We disagree with Surya’s contentions on this point. Raja’s testimony was that Surya

locked himself in a room to talk to his ex-girlfriend on numerous occasions. Raja found

pictures of the ex-girlfriend on Surya’s cell phone as well as pictures and statements of him

and his girlfriend traveling in India when he was allegedly on a “business trip” and had left

Raja and EJ at Raja’s parents’ home to go on said trip. Regarding his financial control,

Raja’s and Surya’s testimony was diametrically opposed.

While these were the only examples specifically listed in the divorce decree, the

circuit court did not limit its decision to those examples. Raja testified that when she

changed her bank-account password, Surya refused to support her, telling her that she had

to pay all of her living expenses, even though she was pregnant. He also threatened to lock

her out of the house while he went out of town, relenting only when she threatened to call

the police if he did so. Raja also testified about physical abuse and the fact Surya told her

to return to India with EJ if she would not work because he could not support them.

Raja’s father corroborated Raja’s testimony, noting Surya would not speak to Raja

except to yell at her and argue with her, he would avoid her, and on two occasions, he had

to intervene to keep Surya from “manhandling” Raja. Surya asks this court to reweigh the

evidence in his favor, and we will not do so. It is within the circuit court’s discretion to

12
determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and the

appellate courts give due deference to those determinations. Doss, supra. There was ample

evidence presented and corroborated by Raja’s father to support an award of divorce based

on general indignities. We find no clear error.

IV. Custody

Surya next argues the circuit court erred in not awarding joint custody of EJ. Child-

custody matters are reviewed de novo on appeal, but the circuit court’s findings are not

reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 2019 Ark. App. 416,

588 S.W.3d 38. Whether a circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous turns in large part

on the credibility of the witnesses, and special deference is given to the circuit court’s

superior position to evaluate the witnesses, their testimony, and the child’s best interest. Id.

There are no cases in which the circuit court’s superior position, ability, and opportunity to

observe the parties carry as great a weight as those involving minor children. Id.

The primary consideration in child-custody cases is the welfare and best interest of

the child, with all other considerations being secondary. Id. Although our legislature has

amended Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101 to state that an award of joint custody

is favored in Arkansas, joint custody is not mandatory. Wilhelm v. Wilhelm, 2018 Ark. App.

47, 539 S.W.3d 619. The statutory preference for joint custody does not override the

ultimate guiding principle that the best interest of the child is the polestar factor for a custody

determination. Carrillo v. Morales Ibarra, 2019 Ark. App. 189, 575 S.W.3d 151.

Surya argues that the testimony established that the parties were able to cooperate

and make decisions together for EJ. He points to the fact that both he and Raja had shared

13
in medical childcare responsibilities after EJ was diagnosed with leukemia; the parties have

both been active in EJ’s treatments and in providing childcare while he has been unable to

attend day care. Surya had also been exercising visitation in the months prior to the final

divorce decree.

However, before the parties’ separation, either Raja or her father had primarily cared

for EJ with very little assistance from Surya, who told Raja that EJ was her responsibility.

When Raja wanted to stay home after EJ was born, Surya told Raja to return to India with

EJ because it was too difficult for him to support them both. Raja did take EJ to India and

remained there for six months with her parents. When she returned to the United States

to work, EJ remained with her parents for approximately another four months until her

father returned to the United States with him. Raja’s father testified that while he was

visiting, Surya asked him on about fifty occasions to take Raja and EJ back to India with

him.

Raja expressed concerns about Surya’s not taking precautions with EJ due to his

health issues and not keeping him on a schedule. Raja testified EJ would return from

visitation sick, but Surya claimed to not know why.

The attorney ad litem recommended from her observations and investigations that

primary custody remain with Raja, noting Raja was EJ’s primary caregiver both before the

separation and especially after the parties separated. She opined Surya showed a disregard

for EJ’s welfare by not providing sufficient financial support, and she was concerned this

was a ploy by Surya to force Raja to come back to him.

14
Even though the parties seemed to have periods of time in which they were able to

get along, there were factors indicating joint custody was not in EJ’s best interest. Surya

had little interaction with EJ while the parties lived together. Surya told Raja that EJ was

her responsibility, and if she would not work, she needed to move back to India with EJ,

which she did. According to Raja’s father, Surya asked him on numerous occasions to take

Raja and EJ back to India with him. Furthermore, according the Raja, Surya had a history

of returning EJ to her sick and exhausted after visitation. The attorney ad litem noted Raja

was EJ’s primary caregiver, and she was concerned that Surya was not providing sufficient

support for EJ, perhaps in an effort to force Raja to return to the marriage. EJ is not a pawn

to be used to coerce a desired outcome. Given the fact that credibility determinations are

the responsibility of the circuit court, and this court does not reweigh evidence and the

credibility assigned to it, we cannot say the circuit court’s decision that it was in EJ’s best

interest to grant custody to Raja was clearly erroneous.

V. Retroactive Child Support

Surya, citing Hawkins v. Hawkins, 2013 Ark. App. 330, asserts that the circuit court

erred in awarding retroactive child support, arguing that retroactive child support may not

be awarded absent a proper motion to modify. We hold that this case is more akin to Rudder

v. Hurst, 2009 Ark. App. 577, 337 S.W.3d 565. In Rudder, child support was set in a

temporary order, but the issue of the correct amount of permanent child support was

reserved for the final hearing. At the final hearing, the parties stipulated that the child-

support obligation was a higher amount than had been set at the temporary hearing. The

circuit court took the difference between the two amounts and multiplied it by the number

15
of months separating the two orders to arrive at the total amount of retroactive support due

and granted judgment for that amount. This court held in Rudder that modification of a

temporary support order was not prohibited where the circuit court reserved judgment until

a later determination, and there was no error when the circuit court made any contemplated

adjustments.

In the present case, Surya claims the parties never intended to reserve the issue of

child support in the temporary order. The initial agreed temporary order provided that

Surya was to pay $350 a month toward Raja’s rent and would continue to pay EJ’s health-

insurance premiums and any out-of-pocket medical expenses for EJ; the temporary order

further provided that “the issue of child support is reserved for the final hearing. That this

amount of child support is a deviation from the child support chart due to [Surya’s] paying

100% of all medical expenses because of the child’s illness.” A second temporary order

modified Surya’s visitation to alternating weekends and further provided, “[Surya] shall

continue paying support of $350.00 per month as well as the medical expenses for the child

per the initial Temporary Order pending a final hearing in this matter.” In fact, Surya was

not paying EJ’s medical expenses in the amounts initially contemplated because insurance

covered almost all the expenses. While Surya contends the parties never contemplated and

reserved the issue of retroactive child support for the final hearing, this wording clearly

indicates that the issue of child support was to be reserved and revisited at the final hearing.

We cannot say the circuit court was clearly erroneous in awarding retroactive child support.

16
VI. Division of Marital Property

For his last point on appeal, Surya contends that the circuit court erred in awarding

Raja an unequal division of marital property. Specifically, he takes issue with the division

of the bank account in his name and his 2017 bonus (paid in 2018).2

All marital property shall be distributed equally to each party unless the circuit court

determines that such a division is inequitable. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315(a)(1). Surya

first argues Raja is not entitled to one-half of $54,000 from his bank account because the

balance of that account at the time of separation was $51,364, and it was his testimony that

$18,348 of that was premarital. He contends Raja was entitled to only one-half of $33,016,

or $16,508.

The parties’ testimony on the valuation of the bank accounts was unclear and

imprecise; no financial records were introduced. The circuit court was left to rely solely on

the parties’ conflicting testimony. While Surya testified that some of the funds in his bank

account were premarital, the circuit court was not obliged to credit that testimony. There

was also testimony Surya had given away large sums of money to his family without Raja’s

knowledge or consent. We cannot say the circuit court clearly erred in the division of

Surya’s bank account.

2
The parties had previously agreed Surya would pay Raja $35,000 for her interest in
the marital home. The circuit court ordered that each party was to retain the items of
personal property in their possession, including vehicles. Raja was awarded one-half of
Surya’s 401(k), minus $22,000 that was premarital. Surya was awarded one-half of Raja’s
401(k), and Surya was ordered to pay Raja one-half of his 2017 tax refund of $3000 and
one-half of his 2018 bonus (paid in 2019), which was $11,200 after a 30 percent deduction
for tax consequences. Surya raises no issue on appeal regarding the division of these assets.
17
Surya contends the circuit court did not consider the $11,300 Raja testified was in

her account at the time of separation. He further asserts that although the circuit court

reduced his 2018 bonus by 30 percent to account for tax consequences, the division of the

remaining $20,000 resulted in an inequitable distribution in Raja’s favor because the court

failed to factor in the 12 percent contribution from that bonus to his 401(k). Surya made

no objection to the circuit court about the distribution of these assets; these arguments are

being raised for the first time on appeal. It is well settled that the appellate courts will not

consider arguments made for the first time on appeal; an appellant is limited by the scope

and nature of the objections and arguments presented at trial. See Pilkinton v. Pilkinton, 2018

Ark. App. 624, 569 S.W.3d 882. We affirm the circuit court’s division of marital property.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Garrett Law Firm, PLLC, by: Earl J. Garrett, for appellant.

Tina Adcock-Thomas, for appellee.

18