Hall v. Hall, 2013 Ark. 330

Tammye and Justin Hall divorced by consent decree (Mar 1, 2010); decree set child support based on Justin’s Falcon Jet wages and excluded income from his business, Hall Engineering, in exchange for Tammye accepting payment toward private-school tuition ($715 minimum).
After the decree, Tammye discovered Justin had concealed marital assets and misrepresented Hall Engineering income; Justin admitted in court to hiding funds and misrepresenting finances.
The circuit court found Justin had willfully concealed at least $125,000 in marital funds across multiple accounts, awarded Tammye a monetary judgment plus fees and costs, and noted the concealment was egregious.
Tammye moved to increase child support, arguing (1) Justin’s Hall Engineering income materially increased or (2) the original support was based on fraudulent figures; she produced accounting evidence showing higher gross/net receipts for 2009–2010 and proposed a higher support amount.
The circuit court denied the child-support increase, stating it could not determine whether concealed funds were regular income or one‑time payments and noting Tammye knew determining Hall Engineering income was difficult when the decree was entered; it allowed Tammye to renew later.
This appeal challenges only the denial of the motion to increase child support; the majority affirms, concluding the denial was not incorrect despite the circuit court’s misstatement of law; a dissent would reverse and remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether concealed funds and increased Hall Engineering receipts constitute income warranting modification of child support	Hall: All forms of payment (periodic or one‑time) count as income; she proved a material change based on concealed/business receipts and fraud	Justin: Discovered assets were not ongoing income; no material change in ongoing income to modify support	Majority: Affirmed denial — although court erred to distinguish one‑time vs ongoing income, other unchallenged findings (Tammye knew income was hard to determine and funds dated to 2009–2010) supported denial; dissent would reverse and remand

Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 205 S.W.3d 767 (Ark. 2005) (standard of review for child‑support orders; findings of fact not reversed unless clearly erroneous)
Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 243 S.W.3d 886 (Ark. 2006) (party seeking modification bears burden to show material change; factors to consider)
Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485, 65 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2002) (broad definition of "income" for child‑support purposes)
Evans v. Tillery, 361 Ark. 63, 204 S.W.3d 547 (Ark. 2005) (nonperiodic monetary judgments can be treated as income)
McWhorter v. McWhorter, 346 Ark. 475, 58 S.W.3d 840 (Ark. 2001) (various forms of receipts can constitute income for support)
Rockefeller v. Rockefeller, 335 Ark. 145, 980 S.W.2d 255 (Ark. 1998) (court retains authority to modify child support despite parties’ private agreement)