382 S.W.3d 795
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Stacey Gillison appeals a Chicot County Circuit Court order modifying his child-support obligations and awarding attorney’s fees to Carol Gillison.
- The dissolution of marriage (1992–2005) incorporated a Custody, Child Support, and Property Settlement Agreement, setting custody with Carol, child-support at $1500/month, and payment of school costs by Stacey.
- The Agreement allowed Carol to reside in the marital home; a sale/estate-sharing provision triggered if she remarries or moves another person into the home before May 2013, with half the equity to Stacey’s trust; Carol paid the mortgage.
- Alimony under the Agreement was $1500/month, decreasing by $375 per month per child upon graduation until May 2013, and terminating if Carol remarried or moved in a new partner.
- At trial, the court found the oldest child turned eighteen in May 2008, adjusted alimony and child-support for remaining children, considered educational expenses as part of a separate contract, and ordered Stacey to assume mortgage payments.
- Stacey challenges five issues on appeal, including retroactive child-support modification, the home-sale trigger, deviation for educational expenses, and the attorney’s-fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive child support modification | Ward v. Doss not applicable; modification should be from petition filing | Ward v. Doss supports calculating from oldest child18 date and adjusting remaining children | No abuse; Ward applied; modification as of oldest child turning 18 |
| Sale of marital home based on 'another person' | Child with Terry Seaman constitutes 'another person' triggering sale | Intended meaning excludes a child; not triggered by new baby | Not triggered; interpretation of contract as a whole supports same |
| Deviation for educational expenses | Educational costs can justify deviation from the chart under A.O. 10 | Educational expenses are part of independent contract and cannot automatically deviate | No deviation; contract-based educational costs not counted as chart deviation |
| Attorney’s fees award analysis | Fees awarded without Chrisco-factor analysis; improper | Fees justified; court may rely on its experience | Reversed and remanded for proper Chrisco-factor analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 205 S.W.3d 767 (2005) (termination by operation of law for oldest child; recalculate remaining support)
- Yell v. Yell, 56 Ark.App. 176, 939 S.W.2d 860 (1997) (retroactive modification limited to petition filing date; distinguish Ward)
- Hyden v. Hyden, 85 Ark.App. 132, 148 S.W.3d 748 (2004) (educational expenses and support deviations; not binding to bar contract terms)
- Crisco v. Sun Industries, Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990) (Chrisco factors for attorney’s-fees analysis)
- Stout v. Stout, 2011 Ark. App. 201, 378 S.W.3d 844 (2011) (trial court may award fees and consider Chrisco factors; may remand for analysis)