Delgado v. Delgado
2012 Ark. App. 100
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellee Swacy Delgado was awarded custody of the minor child, $1000/month alimony, and $2500 in attorney's fees in the 2011 divorce decree.
- Appellant Alfredo Delgado appealed alleging error on custody, alimony, and attorney’s fees determinations.
- Divorce filed April 15, 2010; marriage year 2005; child born July 9, 2007; custody dispute arose from concerns over parenting and lifestyle.
- Temporary agreed order May 21, 2010 provided joint custody with equal time and appellant’s temporary use of the marital home.
- Final hearing March 21, 2011; appellant claimed stability and paternal involvement; appellee alleged appellant’s health issues and other concerns; relationship history included underage meeting and appellee’s boyfriend.
- Trial court found both parties fit; awarded custody to appellee, alimony, and fees; appellant challenged these rulings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody best interests and credibility | Delgado contends trial court failed to apply best interests standard. | Delgado argues credibility findings supported custody to appellee. | Court affirmed; credibility and best interests supported appellee. |
| Alimony award reasonableness | Delgado claims alimony amount was an abuse of discretion given income/assets. | Delgado asserts court considered Rudder factors and relative earning capacity. | Alimony not an abuse of discretion; factors supported award. |
| Attorney’s fees award | Delgado argues fee award was improper due to divorce entitlement and infidelity findings. | Delgado contends circuit court appropriately exercised discretion based on case familiarity. | Fees affirmed; court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tribble v. Tribble, 2011 Ark. App. 407 (Ark. App. 2011) (de novo standard with deference to trial court in credibility)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 336 Ark. 379, 985 S.W.2d 724 (Ark. 1999) (moral turpitude may affect custody decisions)
- Bridges v. Shields, 2011 Ark. 448, 385 S.W.3d 176 (Ark. 2011) (affirming result despite announced reason)
- Rudder v. Hurst, 2009 Ark. App. 577, 337 S.W.3d 565 (Ark. App. 2009) (outline Rudder factors for alimony analysis)
- Matthews v. Matthews, 2009 Ark. App. 400, 322 S.W.3d 15 (Ark. App. 2009) (alimony purpose to rectify economic imbalance)
- Stout v. Stout, 2011 Ark. App. 201, 378 S.W.3d 844 (Ark. App. 2011) (circuit court discretion in fee awards)
- Chrisco v. Sun Industries, Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (Ark. 1990) (factors for determining attorney’s fees)
- Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 2009 Ark. App. 685, 373 S.W.3d 329 (Ark. App. 2009) (consideration of assets and earning capacity in alimony)
- Cole v. Cole, 89 Ark. App. 134, 201 S.W.3d 21 (Ark. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing alimony decisions)