Blair v. Willis
2017 Ark. App. 324
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Danielle Blair and Randall Willis divorced in 2003; two children were born of the marriage. The August 2003 temporary order and the December 2003 divorce decree awarded custody to Willis and said nothing about child support.
- In October 2007 the parties jointly petitioned to clarify visitation, tax exemptions, access to records, and to split health/dental insurance premiums; that order likewise said nothing about child support.
- In September 2015 Blair (pro se) filed a motion seeking change of custody and child support; Willis counterclaimed seeking retroactive child support for 2002–2007 and asked to equally split child-related costs going forward.
- After trial the circuit court awarded Willis $11,616 in retroactive support for 2002–2007 plus half of insurance premiums (offset by a retroactive award to Blair for late 2015) and ordered ongoing monthly support of $594 from Willis.
- Blair appealed only the retroactive-support award for 2002–2007, arguing (1) Willis’s petition should be treated as a modification (making relief only prospective to filing) and (2) equitable defenses (waiver/estoppel/laches) barred retroactive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Willis’s claim for child support was a modification (so retroactivity limited to filing date) | Blair: This is a modification under Ark. Code § 9-14-107(d); retroactive recovery should be limited to motion filing date | Willis: There was no prior court-ordered support to modify; court may set retroactive support for period without an order | Court: Not a modification; parents owe ongoing duty to support and court properly awarded retroactive support for 2002–2007 |
| Whether equitable defenses (waiver, estoppel, laches) barred retroactive support | Blair: Facts and arguments raise equitable defenses that should bar Willis’s claim | Willis: Equitable defenses were not established; court may consider facts and award retroactive support | Court: Circuit court did not rule on equitable defenses; appellant failed to obtain a ruling to preserve issue for appeal, so court will not review; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 341 Ark. 596, 19 S.W.3d 1 (2000) (standard of review for equity and child-support findings)
- Fonken v. Fonken, 334 Ark. 637, 976 S.W.2d 952 (1998) (parental duty to support exists even absent prior court order; supports retroactive recovery)
- OCSE v. Goff, 96 Ark. App. 238, 240 S.W.3d 133 (2006) (equitable defenses may be unnecessary where judgment itself is implicated; distinguished here)
- Meador v. Total Compliance Consultants, Inc., 2013 Ark. 22, 425 S.W.3d 718 (2013) (appellant must obtain a trial-court ruling to preserve an issue for appeal)
- Wilson v. Dardanelle Dist. of Yell Cty. Dist. Ct., 375 Ark. 294, 290 S.W.3d 1 (2008) (appellate courts will not review issues on which circuit court did not rule)