Bundy v. Womble
558 S.W.3d 429
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Father Lyndon Bundy filed a paternity petition seeking primary custody of his son BW (b. 2014), child-support order, and a name change; paternity was established.
- At trial Bundy testified he provided substantial informal support and liberal visitation but raised concerns about the mother Brooklynn Womble’s living conditions, hygiene of the child, corporal discipline, and her boyfriend’s presence.
- Womble testified she has been BW’s primary caregiver since birth, works ~40 hours/week, allows father visitation voluntarily, and denied abusive conduct; she admitted to occasional spanking and one instance of swatting a hand.
- Witnesses for each side delivered conflicting accounts about home conditions, child hygiene, discipline, and parental fitness; the circuit court credited Womble’s testimony.
- Court awarded primary custody to Womble, ordered Bundy to pay biweekly child support, changed the child’s surname to Bundy, and added Bundy to the birth certificate; joint custody was rejected due to distance and inability to cooperate.
- Bundy moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (a scalping injury to BW allegedly caused by Womble) after trial but before entry of the judgment; the trial court denied relief (implicitly), and Bundy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bundy) | Defendant's Argument (Womble) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding primary custody to Womble was contrary to BW’s best interest | Womble’s housing is crowded/unstable; child hygiene and corporal punishment issues; Bundy says his home is more suitable and he has family care | Womble: she is BW’s primary caregiver, employed, bonded to BW, allows visitation, and cares for BW’s needs | Court affirmed: trial court’s credibility findings favored Womble; appellate court will not reweigh conflicts and found no clear error in best-interest determination |
| Whether motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (scalp injury) warranted relief under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(7) | The scalp injury photos, medical report, and text showed Womble caused injury and withheld care, likely would have changed outcome | Trial court could find the evidence did not warrant a new trial (impeachment or credibility matter) and was submitted before entry of judgment | Court affirmed denial: new evidence was submitted before judgment, and impeachment-style evidence insufficient to require a new trial; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Burr v. Burr, 476 S.W.3d 195 (Ark. App. 2015) (de novo review and clear-error standard in custody appeals)
- Grantham v. Lucas, 385 S.W.3d 337 (Ark. App. 2011) (deference to trial court on witness credibility in custody cases)
- Fox v. Fox, 465 S.W.3d 18 (Ark. App. 2015) (the trial court’s superior opportunity to observe witnesses is especially weighty in custody disputes)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 974 S.W.2d 494 (Ark. App. 1998) (primary-caregiver status is a relevant custody consideration)
- Wilhelm v. Wilhelm, 539 S.W.3d 619 (Ark. App. 2018) (appellate court will not reweigh conflicting testimony resolved by the trial court)
- Richardson v. Brown, 423 S.W.3d 630 (Ark. App. 2012) (conflicts in testimony and credibility determinations are for the circuit court)
- Jones v. Double "D" Props., Inc., 98 S.W.3d 405 (Ark. 2003) (motion for new trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59 is within trial court’s discretion)
- Lee v. Lee, 954 S.W.2d 231 (Ark. 1997) (newly discovered evidence must likely change result to warrant new trial)