James v. Walchli
2017 Ark. App. 645
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Liz James and Lee Walchli divorced in 2012; they share one child (CW) and Liz adopted Lee’s older child (AW). Custody: AW with Lee; CW with Liz.
- In 2015 Lee sought a court order requiring Liz to cooperate (sign) passport applications so CW and AW could travel to Mexico; Liz refused and objected to a telephone hearing and to court intervention as violating custodial-parent presumptions.
- The trial court held a telephone conference, entered a temporary order directing Liz to sign passport consent forms, and later issued an order permitting Lee to obtain passports without Liz’s consent after she failed to comply.
- Liz appealed and later litigated multiple related matters; the trial court found Liz in contempt, fined her $1,000 (to be held for CW), and invited Lee to seek attorney’s fees for obtaining passports.
- A 2016 bench trial addressed several issues; the court denied Liz’s request for increased child support (finding support would not be modified) and awarded Lee $5,006.16 in attorney’s fees related to the passport dispute.
- On appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals: declined to address the passport-signing order as moot, reversed and remanded the denial of child support (requiring use of the net-worth method for self-employed payors under Admin. Order No. 10), and affirmed the fee award to Lee.
Issues
| Issue | James's Argument | Walchli's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by ordering James to sign passport applications / telephone hearing procedure | Order infringed custodial-parent presumption and due process; telephone hearing improper | Order was emergency, non-dispositive; phone conference necessary to permit timely passport issuance | Issue moot (passport obtained without her signature); Court did not rule on merits |
| Whether James was entitled to an increase in child support for CW | Requested modification based on income disparity; presented CPA analysis of Lee’s income | Lee failed to produce clear income evidence; argued no change warranting modification | Reversed and remanded — trial court erred; must apply Admin. Order No. 10(c) and use net-worth method for self-employed payors |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Walchli for passport efforts | Fees excessive and included work unrelated to passport matter; court failed to consider relative finances | Fees were reasonable and limited to passport-related efforts; award also served as sanction for contempt | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in awarding $5,006.16 in fees |
| Whether James’s contempt for refusing to comply with passport order was improper | Argued court lacked jurisdiction and procedural protections; refusal was in good faith | Contempt arose from clear, direct court order that was defied | Contempt finding left intact (James did not challenge contempt); $1,000 fine imposed and held for CW |
Key Cases Cited
- Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 (Ark. 2002) (custodial-parent presumption and due-process principles in custody disputes)
- Poland v. Poland, 2017 Ark. App. 178 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (mootness doctrine and exceptions)
- Vice v. Vice, 2016 Ark. App. 504 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (trial court discretion to award attorney’s fees in domestic-relations matters)
- Chrisco v. Sun Industries, Inc., 304 Ark. 227 (Ark. 1990) (framework for attorney-fee analysis referenced historically in domestic cases)