Jenkins v. Jenkins
2017 Ark. App. 642
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jon‑Claude and Scarlett Jenkins divorced in 2010; their property‑settlement agreement (incorporated but not merged into the decree) required Jon‑Claude to pay $3,000/month alimony “until Jon‑Claude’s income is reduced.” The agreement did not state his baseline income.
- Jon‑Claude stopped paying alimony beginning January 2016; Scarlett moved for contempt and collection of arrearages; Jon‑Claude filed a countermotion and defended by claiming his income had been reduced.
- A contempt hearing was set for October 10, 2016; both parties’ motions were heard together with no objection by Jon‑Claude’s counsel to consolidating the hearings.
- Evidence included Jon‑Claude’s 1099s for 2009, 2010, and 2015 (2010: $239,417; 2015: $272,732.28); Jon‑Claude presented a letter showing a commission-rate cut in 2015 but offered no 2016 income evidence and filed no motion to suspend payments.
- The trial court found Jon‑Claude failed to prove a reduction in income, held him in contempt, entered a $21,000 judgment for arrearages (accruing interest), and ordered immediate payments of $1,000/month toward the arrears; Jon‑Claude appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jon‑Claude) | Defendant's Argument (Scarlett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt order was void for lack of show‑cause order and service | Trial court lacked jurisdiction because no formal show‑cause order was entered/served | Court had subject‑matter jurisdiction and Jon‑Claude received actual notice; procedural defects were waived | Court rejected jurisdictional challenge; procedural defect (if any) did not oust jurisdiction and was waived |
| Whether trial court clearly erred in factual findings about income | Court erred in treating 2010 1099 as baseline and in accepting 2015 1099 without 2016 evidence | 1099s were proper evidence; burden on Jon‑Claude to prove decreased income | No clear error; Jon‑Claude failed to prove income reduction |
| Whether trial court improperly modified alimony by ordering $1,000/month toward arrears | Order altered the contractual alimony terms by imposing a repayment schedule | Order merely enforced the contract and entered a money judgment/repayment plan, not a modification | No abuse of discretion; enforcement and repayment schedule are lawful and not a contract modification |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying Jon‑Claude’s countermotion and awarding fees to Scarlett | (Implicit) Countermotion had merit; fees unwarranted | Scarlett not in contempt; fees appropriate under enforcement | Appellate decision left these findings intact (not contested on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Artman v. Hoy, 370 Ark. 131 (2007) (alimony by agreement is contractual; courts apply contract construction and may not modify independent contracts)
- St. Paul Mercury Ins. v. Circuit Court of Craighead Cty., 348 Ark. 197 (2002) (subject‑matter jurisdiction defined as power to hear the controversy)
- Banning v. State, 22 Ark. App. 144 (1987) (distinguishes lack of jurisdiction from improper exercise of jurisdiction)
- Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69 (2006) (failure to follow statutory procedure does not necessarily divest a court of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Surratt v. Surratt, 85 Ark. App. 267 (2004) (trial court may construe, clarify, and enforce parties’ settlement agreement)