609 S.W.3d 643
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Charles and Deborah Symanietz married in 1991, separated in 2017; they operated a jointly owned trucking business (Symanietz Enterprises) that was the couple’s sole income source since 2009.
- At the divorce, Deborah had custody of two minor children and cared for a disabled adult daughter; the parties previously split business income 50/50.
- The circuit court imputed $3,400/month to Charles (finding he was working below capacity), set child support at $800/month, and ordered two years of rehabilitative alimony: $100/month if Deborah received $2,000/month from the business, increasing to $2,000/month if she stopped receiving that income (so long as she had not voluntarily left employment).
- The court declined to enforce a claimed mediation agreement covering real property because it was not entered into evidence and its terms were unclear.
- Charles was held in contempt for nonpayment of child support and later for willful nonpayment (resulting in jail sentences and a $15,000 judgment as a purge condition); Charles appealed, challenging child-support calculation, alimony, mediation-agreement refusal, and contempt findings.
Issues
| Issue | Charles's Argument | Deborah's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child support calculation / income imputation | Court erred by imputing income without first relying on his prior two years’ tax returns and without a written finding; imputed amount exceeded his capacity. | Court permissibly imputed income under Admin. Order No. 10 because Charles was working below capacity and evidence supported a $3,400/month imputation. | Affirmed: imputation and child-support award upheld; trial court did not clearly err in finding Charles underemployed and imputing $3,400/month. |
| Spousal support (alimony) | Alimony improper because parties had equal earnings and Deborah chose not to work; award effectively leaves Charles with insufficient income. | Alimony appropriate to remedy earning imbalance, Deborah’s lower earning capacity, childcare/disabled-dependent burden, and the parties’ long marriage; award was rehabilitative and time-limited. | Affirmed: two-year rehabilitative alimony permissible and not an abuse of discretion given the facts and trial court credibility findings. |
| Enforcement of mediation agreement re: real property | Court should enforce the parties’ mediation agreement (including a minimum sale price). | Agreement was not introduced into evidence at the hearing and terms were unclear; trial court properly disregarded it. | Affirmed: court did not err in refusing to enforce an unproduced, unclear mediation agreement. |
| Contempt for nonpayment (child support & alimony) | Nonwillful nonpayment (lack of notice and inadequate actual income); payments averaged roughly $600/month so contempt was improper. | Evidence showed willful nonpayment under imputed-income finding; arrearage calculation accounted for amounts paid. | Mixed: contempt for child-support nonpayment affirmed (not clearly against preponderance of evidence). Appeal of the later contempt order re: alimony was not considered because notice of appeal was untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Hall, 429 S.W.3d 219 (Ark. 2013) (standard of review for child-support orders; de novo on the record with deference to factual findings)
- Tucker v. Office of Child Support Enf’t, 247 S.W.3d 485 (Ark. 2007) (trial court should consider tax returns and earning capacity for self-employed payors)
- Moore v. Moore, 486 S.W.3d 766 (Ark. 2016) (factors and discretionary standard for awarding alimony)
- Perser v. Perser, 588 S.W.3d 395 (Ark. App. 2019) (appellate standard for alimony awards; abuse of discretion review)
- Grimsley v. Drewyor, 575 S.W.3d 636 (Ark. App. 2019) (permanent alimony not appropriate to subsidize a capable professional who chooses not to earn)
- Ivy v. Keith, 92 S.W.3d 671 (Ark. 2002) (willful disobedience required for contempt; orders must be definite, clear, and express)