Fox v. Fox
2015 Ark. App. 367
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Separated spouses; divorce decree entered Aug. 18, 2014 in Sebastian County Circuit Court; Perla awarded primary custody of four daughters; Paul ordered bi-monthly child support of $2,193 and alimony $395, based on bi-monthly severance income of $8,090; Paul’s severance ended Aug. 12, 2014, leaving him unemployed at the divorce; trial court treated Paul’s severance as ongoing income for support; Paul sought joint custody arguing suitability and relocation flexibility; court affirmed Perla’s custody award but reversed and remanded regarding child support and alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint custody should have been awarded | Fox argues suitability for joint custody under Act 1156 of 2013. | Hendricks argues traditional best interest standard supports sole custody to Perla. | Custody affirmed in favor of Perla; joint custody not required. |
| Whether child support was correctly calculated based on Paul’s income | Fox contends no income at divorce; chart should reflect zero income. | Hendricks contends using existing severance income was proper. | Child support calculation reversed; remanded to reassess with available earnings. |
| Whether income should be imputed and how alimony should be calculated | Fox argues no current income; imputation should be limited. | Hendricks maintains imputation possible per AO 10 and case law. | Remanded; alimony tied to child-support recalculation. |
| Whether the alimony award was appropriate given income and its escalation | Fox challenges alimony based on non-existent ongoing income; escalation questionable. | Hendricks states alimony interrelated with child-support and appropriate. | Remanded along with child-support recalculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Taylor, 47 S.W.3d 222 (Ark. 2001) (best-interest standard deference to trial court in custody)
- Grady v. Grady, 747 S.W.2d 77 (Ark. 1988) (imputation of income based on case facts and circumstances)
- Chaffin v. Chaffin, 2011 Ark. App. 293 (Ark. App. 2011) (custody de novo standard; not clearly erroneous if trial court credible)
- Johnson v. Cotton-Johnson, 194 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2004) (alimony factors; need and payor's ability)
- Hall v. Hall, 429 S.W.3d 219 (Ark. 2013) (child-support de novo review; abuse of discretion standard for amount)
- Browning v. Browning, 455 S.W.3d 863 (Ark. 2015) (child-support/imbalance; standard of review)
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (relocation presumption not applicable to joint custody)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (relocation considerations in custody)