Arkansas Judge Ignores Partnership Agreement: Transfers All Property to Male Fraudster

The good news: This blogger is admitted to law school.

The bad news: Law school costs money.

Bowen School of Law is one of the least expensive schools in the country. And I was offered my choice of two generous scholarships. One based on an LSAT score in the top 20%, and as indicated by that score, my strong analytical and verbal skills. The other is based on my age, being over 60 and willing to share my wisdom of the elders with the young-uns coming up behind.

Unfortunately, I will still need to borrow to cover my other costs – unless I receive support from donors or am successful trying to recover assets that were taken from me improperly. My husband lets me live in his house rent free, I have a $644.33 month pension and qualify for SNAP (while that lasts). Fees, books, food and gas will cost more than that.

I sure could use that $100,000 or $200,000 the Judge Susan Weaver transferred to my former partner, when Attorney Zac White advocated for the known fraudster. Here is a note that was entered as an exhibit in the proceedings that explains how they were defrauding me.

Here is a discussion I had with ChatGPT about a key ruling Judge Weaver made to rationalize taking money from a now 62-year-old woman and giving it to the 9-year younger alcoholic who conned the woman into thinking he loved her.

You said:

In Arkansas, does an unincorporated partnership agreement have to be in writing?

ChatGPT said:

​In Arkansas, a partnership agreement does not have to be in writing to be legally valid. According to Arkansas Code § 4-46-101(7), a “partnership agreement” can be “written, oral, or implied.” This means that partnerships can be formed based on verbal agreements or through the conduct of the parties involved.​Justia Law

Common Opinion: While oral or implied partnership agreements are legally recognized, many business advisors and legal professionals strongly recommend putting partnership agreements in writing. A written agreement provides clear documentation of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the partners, which can help prevent misunderstandings and disputes in the future.​

Neutral Perspective: Legally, Arkansas allows for partnership agreements to be oral, written, or implied. However, the absence of a written agreement can lead to challenges in proving the specific terms of the partnership if disagreements arise. Therefore, while not mandatory, a written agreement is advisable for clarity and legal protection.​

If Your Opinion Differs: If you believe that an oral agreement suffices due to trust between partners or the simplicity of the business arrangement, consider the following points:​

• Memory and Interpretation: Over time, memories can fade, and interpretations of verbal agreements may differ among partners, leading to potential conflicts.​Arkansas Secretary of State
• Legal Enforcement: In the event of a dispute, enforcing an oral agreement can be more challenging and may require additional evidence to substantiate the terms.​
• Third-Party Relations: A written agreement can provide clarity to external parties (e.g., banks, investors) about the structure and terms of the partnership, which can be beneficial for business operations and securing financing.​

In summary, while Arkansas law permits oral and implied partnership agreements, having a written agreement is generally considered a prudent practice to ensure all partners have a clear, shared understanding of their rights and obligations.​ [citations removed]

You said:

A partnership agreement was put in writing. It was simple. If the partners broke up, all assets accumulated from the day of entering the agreement until the day of breakup, regardless of who put in the work and who put in capital, would be divided 50/50. Was this a “contract”?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that sounds like a valid contract under Arkansas law—and most general principles of contract law.

Here’s why it’s a contract:

To form a legally enforceable contract, you typically need:

1. Offer – One party proposes a set of terms.
2. Acceptance – The other party agrees to those terms.
3. Consideration – Each party gives up something of value (time, labor, capital, etc.).
4. Mutual intent to be bound – Both parties mean to enter a binding arrangement.
5. Legality – The subject of the contract must be legal.

Your written partnership agreement appears to hit all five:

• Offer and acceptance: The partners agreed to specific terms (50/50 division regardless of contribution).
• Consideration: One put in labor, one put in capital—both are valid forms of consideration.
• Intent to be bound: Putting it in writing shows intent.
• Legality: A business partnership with agreed terms on division of assets is perfectly legal.

So yes—this is a contract, and it’s enforceable unless it’s invalidated for some reason (like fraud, duress, incapacity, or being contrary to public policy, which doesn’t appear to apply here based on what you said).

What would most people think?

Common opinion:
A lot of people might assume that the person who “did more work” or “put up more money” should get more. So they may be surprised or feel it’s “unfair” if someone walks away with half despite doing less, especially if the venture made a lot of money. [In this case, the one who put up no capital and was on a destructive alcohol binge the majority of the time took the entire assets to split with his attorney.]

But…

Legally and neutrally speaking:
If both parties voluntarily agreed to those simple terms upfront and in writing, courts generally enforce them as written—even if the results seem one-sided later.

If your opinion is that it shouldn’t be enforceable…

You’d need to argue something like:

• The agreement was signed under pressure or confusion (lack of capacity or duress),
• There was fraud or misrepresentation,
• The terms are unconscionable (extremely unfair in a shocking way),
• Or, perhaps, that some sort of fiduciary duty between the partners was violated, depending on the specifics.

But otherwise, courts like honoring freedom to contract—even when the deal turns out to be lopsided in hindsight.

Let me know if you’re thinking about how to defend or challenge it, and I can help strategize.

You said:

A judge said it was against public policy. I disagree. Her reason is that there was an opening short paragraph that said the partners were married in the eyes of God, but don’t think the state should have the authority to control marriage. The agreement did not follow the law in Arkansas for dividing marital property at divorce. What would Judge ChatGPT say?

ChatGPT said:

Judge ChatGPT has thoughts—and this one gets interesting, because it blends contract law, public policy, and marriage law in a uniquely American way.

🧑‍⚖️ What Would Judge ChatGPT Say?

“Your Honor, respectfully, I disagree with your ruling.”

Here’s how I’d break it down if I were on the bench, trying to be neutral and thoughtful:

⚖️ Step 1: Is the Agreement a Contract?

Yes. As discussed earlier, it ticks all the boxes for a contract: offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and legality (as in, not promoting something criminal or inherently illegal). It’s a simple partnership agreement about how to divide assets if the business or relationship ends—not a secret marriage.

⚖️ Step 2: Is It Actually a Marriage Contract?

The opening paragraph says the parties are “married in the eyes of God” and reject the state’s authority to define marriage. That sounds like a personal or spiritual declaration, not a legal one. Importantly:

• Arkansas does not recognize common law marriage. So, unless the couple was legally married elsewhere and moved to Arkansas, their “marriage” has no legal status.
• The agreement doesn’t create a marriage under Arkansas law, so it’s not a marital settlement agreement or divorce decree. It’s just a private contract between two people.

Judge ChatGPT would say:

“Calling yourselves spiritually married doesn’t make this a marriage under Arkansas law, and the agreement doesn’t purport to follow or circumvent any divorce statute—it operates as a private business agreement with clear asset-sharing terms. The state’s marital property rules don’t apply if there’s no state-recognized marriage.”

⚖️ Step 3: Does It Violate Public Policy?

Now this is the judge’s reasoning: they ruled it’s against public policy because it doesn’t follow Arkansas’s rules for dividing marital property at divorce.

But if they weren’t legally married, those rules wouldn’t apply in the first place. The judge may be:

• Interpreting the “married in God’s eyes” language as an attempt to circumvent divorce law, or
• Suggesting that enforcing it would indirectly validate a non-legally recognized marriage—which the state has a policy against.

But that seems like a stretch, because:

• Private contracts between cohabitating partners (even romantically involved ones) have long been upheld in Arkansas and elsewhere.
• The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that people can form contracts related to shared property, effort, or earnings, regardless of marital status (see Marvin v. Marvin, a California case, but influential nationwide).

So unless this agreement pretends to be a divorce settlement or seeks rights that only come from legal marriage, it’s hard to argue it’s against public policy.

🗣 Common Opinion vs Legal Norms

Common Opinion: Most people would say: “They weren’t legally married, so they should be allowed to make whatever deal they want. It’s nobody else’s business if they split 50/50.”

Neutral Legal View: Courts enforce cohabitation or partnership agreements if they don’t look like an attempt to skirt divorce law. Your agreement is about business/property, not about custody, alimony, or marital rights. So it should be enforceable.

🔥 If You Disagree with the Judge…

Here are the strongest arguments you could make:

1. This isn’t a marital agreement at all. No marriage = no divorce = no public policy to protect.
2. Freedom to contract matters. Arkansas allows private arrangements between adults unless they promote something illegal. This doesn’t.
3. The spiritual language was just a personal expression. It didn’t ask the court to recognize a religious marriage or enforce religious rules.

You could also cite Arkansas precedent allowing division of assets between non-married cohabitants or business partners if there’s a clear agreement, even if they were in a romantic relationship.

END of Discussion

During a hearing, Judge Weaver tried hard to get me to agree the contract was invalid. I carefully informed her that the contract was not void, but it is voidable. If both parties agreed, we could void the contract. Voiding the contract would benefit me if we went to trial. I was generous to enter the agreement, as all the capital was mine and I did the vast majority of the work that increased the assets.

The transcript left out what I said, and Judge Weaver refused to allow the audio recording of the hearing to be played in an open court. The court of appeals and supreme court were no help.

Judge Weaver said that I agreed the contract was void “ab initio” and the fraudsters should take 100% of the combined assets, because the real estate was originally purchased with title in my partner’s name, and he transferred it to my trust – an entity for which I was not allowed to advocate.

Too bad I don’t have that money to help me pay my expenses during my law school journey.