Balcom v. Crain
2016 Ark. App. 313
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Curtis and Lisa Balcom divorced in 2008; their mediated property-settlement agreement (incorporated into the divorce decree) required Curtis to pay Lisa $200,000 (initial $50,000, monthly payments, and a balloon payment), secured by life insurance.
- Curtis paid the initial $50,000 and twenty monthly payments, then stopped; the trial court found him in contempt on multiple prior occasions (2010–2014) for failing to pay; on one prior occasion the court converted the payments to alimony (not appealed).
- In a subsequent contempt hearing Curtis admitted the debt but claimed inability to pay and asked the court to allow $400/month payments instead of the higher contractual amount.
- The court entered judgment finding Curtis in contempt and restructured the obligation as 180 monthly alimony payments of $976.97, reduced the life-insurance requirement, and provided that failure to miss two monthly payments would permit immediate arrest on motion with bond set at arrearages.
- Curtis appealed, arguing (1) the court lacked authority to modify the contractual obligations and (2) the court erred in holding him in civil contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Balcom) | Defendant's Argument (Crain) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court authority to modify property-settlement terms | Trial court lacked authority to rewrite contractual obligations; could only enter contract judgment or contempt | Trial court incorporated and had flexibility; Curtis actually requested modification below | Not reached on merits — not preserved; Curtis asked the court to modify, so appellate review declined |
| Preservation / invited error | N/A — argues on appeal court lacked authority | Trial court and appellee note Curtis sought the modifications below | Appellate court refused to consider argument because Curtis failed to preserve and requested the modification at trial (invited error) |
| Civil contempt / willfulness requirement | Curtis lacked willful disobedience; inability to pay is a defense | Evidence showed employment, tax refunds, vehicle sales, and failure to apply proceeds to obligation | Finding of civil contempt affirmed — not clearly against preponderance of evidence; inability-to-pay defense not established |
| Arrest-bond sanction and ripeness | Sanction (immediate arrest for two missed payments) is improper | Sanction is conditional and coercive; will be subject to ability-to-pay determination if invoked | Concurrence: issue not ripe; no sanction yet imposed, so not addressed now |
Key Cases Cited
- Brock v. Eubanks, 288 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. App.) (contempt is inherent power of the court)
- Fitzhugh v. State, 752 S.W.2d 275 (Ark. 1988) (distinguishes criminal v. civil contempt; conditional penalties are coercive)
- Penfield Co. v. S.E.C., 330 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1947) (famous articulation of civil-contempt coercive theory — contemnor "carries the keys of his prison")
- Applegate v. Applegate, 275 S.W.3d 682 (Ark. App.) (civil contemnor may free self by compliance)
- Ivy v. Keith, 92 S.W.3d 671 (Ark.) (inability to pay is a defense to civil contempt)
- Fowler v. Hendrix, 479 S.W.3d 591 (Ark. App.) (standard of review for civil-contempt findings)