Chitwood v. Chitwood
2014 Ark. 182
Ark.2014Background
- Appellant Kylie Chitwood appeals a summary-judgment ruling favoring her father Gordon Chitwood on an alleged arrearage for child support from Feb 19, 1999, to May 31, 2004.
- Mother Jane Chitwood previously was held equitably estopped from collecting the same arrearage in Chitwood v. Chitwood (2005).
- Jane filed the earlier action; Kylie reached majority in 2010; Kylie filed her own arrearage suit July 2011.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment May 24, 2012, relying on law-of-the-case and prior estoppel.
- The court of appeals affirmed; this Court reviews de novo and affirms the grant of summary judgment, finding no arrearage and that prior estoppel bars the claim.
- The dissent urges that the arrearage is a singular obligation and that Kylie, as the adult claimant, could pursue the arrearage despite her mother’s earlier estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrearage existed given prior equitable estoppel | Chitwood argues estoppel does not bar Kylie’s claim | Chitwood contends prior estoppel on the same arrearage bars this suit | No arrearage; prior estoppel bars the claim |
| Whether Kylie’s needs were met by mother’s funds during nonpayment | Kylie’s needs were funded by inheritance and not Appellee | Needs met by Appellee’s nonpayment contextually irrelevant to lien | Needs met finding supported; not basis for reversal |
| Whether 9-14-236 permits only a singular arrearage obligation | Statute allows only one obligation; Kylie can bring post-majority action | Statute creates a singular obligation pursued by the first party | Arrears deemed singular; previous suit barred Kylie’s action under Clemmons/Chunn |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given conflict over equitable relief | Estate of estoppel shows no arrearage; trial warranted | No genuine issues of material fact; law bars claim | Summary judgment proper; affirmed |
| Whether the dissent’s view should reverse and remand for trial | Argues for individual rights to sue arrearages after majority | Sic: majority correctly applied law; estoppel governs | Dissentary view would remand; majority's decision stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 345 Ark. 330 ((2001)) (interprets 9-14-105 vs 9-14-236; singular obligation notion; who may sue arrearages after majority)
- Chunn v. D’Agostino, 312 Ark. 141 ((1993)) (one support obligation may be pursued by different persons at different times; finality concerns; limitations)
- Chitwood v. Chitwood, 92 Ark.App. 129 ((2005)) (equitable estoppel barred prior collection of arrearages)
- Lee v. Lee, 95 Ark.App. 69 ((2006)) (parental duty to support despite other funds; non-diminution by inheritance)
- Fonken v. Fonken, 334 Ark. 637 ((1998)) (legal and moral duty to support minor children persists despite other arrangements)
- Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485 ((2002)) (support obligation cannot be bargained away permanently)
- Pender v. McKee, 266 Ark. 18 ((1979)) (parental duty is personal; cannot rely on others to fulfill)