Honeycutt v. Honeycutt
2017 Ark. App. 113
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Divorce decree (Dec. 20, 2013) ordered Michael Honeycutt to pay $1,700/month alimony beginning Jan. 1, 2014, required Doris Honeycutt to apply for SSDI and cooperate on tax returns, and split a 2012 tax refund equally.
- Michael lost his oil-rig employment after an industry downturn in 2015, testified his income fell to nearly zero, and he lived partly in Colombia; he owned an IRA valued ~$200,000–$280,000.
- Michael filed a petition to modify alimony (Oct. 5, 2015), asserting a significant change in income due to layoff and seeking reduced alimony; he also sought credit for airfare and travel/attorney fees allegedly caused by Doris’s refusal to cooperate on taxes and title transfers.
- At the Feb. 18, 2016 hearing Michael testified about two round-trip flights from Colombia to the U.S. and moved to amend his petition to conform to that testimony; Doris objected, claiming surprise and prejudice.
- Trial court found a substantial change in circumstances, credited Michael’s job loss and efforts to find work, found Doris had inherited a house, received state healthcare, and failed to apply for SSDI or cooperate on taxes; reduced alimony to $800/month (effective Nov. 1, 2015) and relieved Michael of future obligation to pay Doris’s healthcare; court awarded credits for attorney fees and airfare and set aside some arrearages.
- On appeal Doris challenged (1) permitting Michael to orally amend pleadings, (2) reduction of alimony despite Michael’s IRA and Doris’s need, and (3) the trial court’s calculation/set-off of arrearages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Honeycutt) | Defendant's Argument (Grub er/Honeycutt appellee is Doris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly allowed oral amendment of pleadings to conform to evidence | Michael: amendment required to match his testimony about airfare; permitted under Rule 15(b) | Doris: amendment was surprise and prejudicial; no discovery; only testimony supported the claim | Court: No abuse of discretion; amendment allowed under Ark. R. Civ. P. 15(b); Doris did not request continuance, no manifest prejudice shown |
| Whether reduction of monthly alimony was erroneous | Michael: substantial change (loss of high-paying job), near-zero income, good-faith job search, changed circumstances justify reduction | Doris: change not material given Michael’s large IRA; court failed to weigh secondary Delacey factors (assets, earning capacity, her need) | Court: Affirmed reduction; trial court considered change and relevant factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court improperly set off arrearages/omitted March payment | Michael: trial court set aside arrearages considering fees and travel costs; reduced payments retroactively | Doris: court improperly omitted March alimony from arrearage calculation | Court: On de novo review court recalculated: total arrearage $7,400; credited $5,100 for fees/airfare leaving $2,300; reduced to judgment; affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineview Farms, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Harvestore, Inc., 298 Ark. 78, 765 S.W.2d 924 (Ark. 1989) (trial court discretion to allow pleadings to conform to evidence; consider prejudice)
- Ison Props., LLC v. Wood, 85 Ark. App. 443, 156 S.W.3d 745 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (standard: amendment decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hickman v. Kralicek Realty & Constr. Co., 84 Ark. App. 61, 129 S.W.3d 317 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (appellant must show manifest abuse to reverse amendment ruling)
- Delacey v. Delacey, 85 Ark. App. 419, 155 S.W.3d 701 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (factors trial court may consider in awarding alimony)
- White v. White, 50 Ark. App. 240, 905 S.W.2d 485 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995) (appellate court may enter correct order on de novo review when equities are clear)