Acre v. Tullis
2017 Ark. App. 249
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Divorce decree in Faulkner County (2008) with one child, G.A.; 2010 agreed custody order designating school-year primary custody to mother and summer to father, with a district-specific attendance provision.
- 2014 Acre sought change of custody; 2014 Tullis filed a petition to relocate to Mississippi; Acre filed contempt alleging unpaid child support.
- Circuit court issued a temporary October 17, 2014 order enforcing the 2010 agreement and denying relief.
- May 6, 2016 final order allowed relocation to Mississippi without changing the agreed custody schedule; Acre’s contempt motion denied.
- Acre appeals on four issues: enforceability of the school-district-based change provision, proper application of relocation presumptions, waiver/intent arguments, and contempt denial related to child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agreed order’s school-based change of custody was enforceable. | Acre contends the agreement should govern change. | Tullis argues the court may review and reject the agreement as unenforceable. | Affirmed circuit court; agreement unenforceable per Hollandsworth/Stills analysis. |
| Whether the Hollandsworth presumption applied to the relocation determination. | Acre asserts Hollandsworth presumption favors relocation. | Tullis contends joint custody means presumption does not apply; focus on change in circumstances and best interest. | Affirmed; Hollandsworth presumption applicable and cannot be waived given non-joint custody structure in practice. |
| Whether Tullis waived any relocation presumption through actions or terms of the agreement. | Acre claims waiver based on conduct and contract terms. | Stills forecloses waiver of Hollandsworth; waiver not permissible. | Unpreserved issue; court declined to address waiver argument. |
| Whether the circuit court correctly denied contempt for nonpayment of child support. | Acre claims support obligation existed post-kindergarten. | Court found agreement tied support to custodial facts; no ongoing obligation. | affirmed; support interpretation aligned with agreement’s context and timing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stills v. Stills, 2010 Ark. 132, 361 S.W.3d 823 (Ark. (2002)) (prescription that Hollandsworth cannot be waived and is a relocation burden)
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (presumption in favor of relocation by custodial parent; not waivable)
- Lewellyn v. Lewellyn, 351 Ark. 346, 93 S.W.3d 681 (Ark. 2002) (change-of-custody framework in relocation cases)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2002) (joint custody context; Hollandsworth presumption not applicable)
- Riddick v. Harris, 2016 Ark. App. 426, 501 S.W.3d 859 (Ark. App. 2016) (de novo review standard in custody matters; deferential to trial court)
- Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. 2005) (emphasizes trial court’s role in credibility and best interests)
- Carver v. May, 81 Ark. App. 292, 101 S.W.3d 256 (Ark. App. 2003) (weight of court’s perception in custody cases)
- Furr v. James, 2013 Ark. App. 181, 427 S.W.3d 94 (Ark. App. 2013) (illustrates best-interest analysis framework)