Guthrie v. Guthrie
2015 Ark. App. 108
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- James Guthrie and Vicki Guthrie divorced in 1998; Vicki custody of three children; J.G. had special educational needs.
- J.G. turned eighteen in 2006 but remained disabled and living with Vicki; James continued paying support until 2012.
- Vicki sought continued support for J.G. in 2012; J.G. received SSI, Medicaid, and had a $19,000 special-needs trust; Vicki testified to substantial care costs.
- Circuit court continued support for J.G., set monthly income at $2,107.01, and ordered $508 monthly support to J.G.; James’s retroactive obligation began May 2, 2012; Vicki was awarded $4,000 in attorney’s fees.
- James appealed arguing automatic termination, lack of need, improper modification retroactivity, income imputation, improper special-needs-trust payments, and attorney’s-fees award.
- Appellate court modified the monthly support to $477 but affirmed the rest of the circuit court’s orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether support for J.G. auto-terminates at majority when disabled | James: automatic termination applies; no ongoing duty. | Guthrie: disability preserves duty to support despite majority. | Duty no automatic termination; continues due to disability. |
| Need for continued support for J.G. given resources | James: J.G. needs are met by Medicaid, trust, and SSI. | Vicki: J.G. requires ongoing care; costs exceed benefits and trust. | Court found continued support supported by need and credibility of caregiver costs. |
| Modification and material change in circumstances | James: no change; should terminate. | Vicki: J.G. disabled at majority; change in circumstances. | Material change occurred; support continued. |
| Computation of income and deviation from chart | James: retirement shows no earning capacity; no imputation; chart amount correct. | Vicki: imputation appropriate; deviation allowed for lifestyle/assets. | Imputed income upheld; chart amount corrected to $436; upward deviation of $41 approved; total support $477. |
| Special-needs trust payments and standing to receive | James argued payments to trust were improper. | Vicki: payments to trust protect government benefits and are allowed. | Court approved payments into J.G.'s special-needs trust; not income to recipient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagley v. Williamson, 101 Ark. App. 1, 269 S.W.3d 837 (Ark. App. 2007) (disability maintains duty to support after majority)
- Davis v. Davis, 79 Ark. App. 178, 84 S.W.3d 447 (Ark. App. 2002) (continuing support for disabled adult child)
- Petty v. Petty, 252 Ark. 1032, 482 S.W.2d 119 (Ark. 1972) (common-law duty to support disabled child beyond majority)
- Towery v. Towery, 285 Ark. 113, 685 S.W.2d 155 (Ark. 1985) (distinguishes disability at majority from becoming disabled after majority)
- Gilbow v. Travis, 2010 Ark. 9, 372 S.W.3d 319 (Ark. 2010) (special-needs trust and income not counted as recipient's income)