620 S.W.3d 518
Ark.2021Background
- Charles and Deborah (Debbie) Symanietz married in 1991 and operated Symanietz Enterprises (trucking). Charles drove; Debbie dispatched, handled billing/taxes, and kept records.
- Parties separated Sept. 2017; Debbie filed for divorce Jan. 25, 2018 and a temporary ex parte order that directed child support.
- Trial court (divorce decree Jan. 22, 2019) imputed income to Charles of $3,400/month, ordered child support of $800/month (plus arrearage payments), awarded alimony with a baseline $100/month that could increase to $2,000/month for two years under certain conditions, and found unpaid arrearages and contempt.
- After the decree, Debbie moved for contempt and modification; circuit court entered additional contempt orders (May and June 2019) including incarceration and a $15,000 judgment/purge amount.
- Charles appealed; Court of Appeals affirmed; Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and (this opinion) affirmed in part and dismissed in part, vacating the Court of Appeals opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Symanietz (Charles) Argument | Symanietz (Debbie) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child support / imputed income (methodology) | Court ignored AO 10 chart and tax returns and improperly imputed income instead of using prior tax-year averages | Court relied on tax returns, IRS/work records, and payor earning capacity per AO 10; Charles voluntarily reduced earnings | Affirmed: trial court properly considered records and earning capacity and did not abuse discretion in imputing $3,400/mo and setting $800/mo support |
| Whether income reduction was voluntary | Income dropped because Debbie stopped working and truck needed repairs; not Charles’s choice | Evidence showed Charles declined runs and intermittently refused to drive; reduction was by choice | Affirmed: trial court credibility finding that Charles chose not to work supports imputation |
| Alimony award | Award is excessive given roughly equal historical earnings and amounts to taking most of Charles’s income | Trial court should consider earning capacity disparity and Debbie’s caregiving obligations and need | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; considered earning capacity, needs, and other alimony factors |
| Mediation agreement re: property sale | Parties had an agreement to sell real estate privately for no less than $200,000; court erred by ordering public sale | Agreement was not entered into evidence and did not address debts/personal property | Affirmed: trial court not bound because agreement was not in evidence |
| Contempt (failure to pay) | Not willful — no notice of temporary order; inability to pay | Arrearage established; contempt appropriate for willful nonpayment | Mixed: appeal from May/June contempt orders dismissed as untimely; January 2019 civil-contempt finding (arrearage $3,500) affirmed (lack-of-notice argument not preserved) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153 (discusses standard of review for child-support findings)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31 (child-support and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Grady v. Grady, 295 Ark. 94 (attributing income based on earning capacity)
- Chekuri v. Nekkalapudi, 2020 Ark. 74 (standard of review and alimony discretion)
- Foster v. Foster, 2016 Ark. 456 (primary and secondary alimony factors)
- Kuchmas v. Kuchmas, 368 Ark. 43 (alimony flexibility over rigid formula)
- Ivy v. Keith, 351 Ark. 269 (definition and purposes of contempt)
- Scudder v. Ramsey, 2013 Ark. 115 (civil vs. criminal contempt and standards)
- Craig v. Carrigo, 353 Ark. 761 (timeliness of notice of appeal and appellate jurisdiction)
- TEMCO Constr., LLC v. Gann, 2013 Ark. 202 (preservation of issues for appeal)