Kirby v. Semeyn
2017 Ark. App. 556
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Heather Kirby and Jeffrey Semeyn divorced in 2003; Heather received custody and Jeffrey was ordered to pay child support. One child (JPS) has Down syndrome and support for him was to continue for life.
- The divorce decree incorporated a property-settlement/child-custody agreement that: (1) required child support to be “computed annually” and be commensurate with the Arkansas Child Support Chart, (2) included a mechanism for computing and amortizing preexisting arrearages tied to Jeffrey’s beginning medical residency, (3) reserved custody-parent’s right to seek modification under Arkansas Code § 9-14-107 for material income changes, and (4) established a special-needs trust funded by each parent at 3% of gross income beginning when Jeffrey began residency.
- Heather filed in April 2015 to increase child support and to collect arrearages, arguing the decree contained an automatic annual escalation that Jeffrey failed to implement (claiming ~ $255,000 arrears).
- The trial court granted an increase in current support but denied Heather’s claim for arrears from an alleged automatic escalation, finding the decree did not unambiguously provide for automatic increases and also invoking laches.
- The trial court ordered both parties to fund the special-needs trust and treated past required trust payments as child-support arrearages, awarding interest and attorney’s fees.
- On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed denial of automatic-arrearages relief, reversed/remanded the increase to the extent it relied on unsupported 2015 income, and reversed the rulings treating trust payments as child support (thus vacating interest and fee awards tied to those trust payments).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the decree created an automatic annual escalation of child support (creating retroactive arrears) | Kirby: Decree’s “computed annually” language and reference to Arkansas chart required annual automatic recalculation; Jeffrey’s income increases created arrears | Semeyn: No automatic-escalation clause; request seeks improper retroactive modification; laches bars claim | Court: No automatic escalation—language ambiguous and lacked mechanism (affirmed trial court denial of arrears) |
| Whether laches barred Kirby’s claim for arrears | Kirby: Laches not applicable | Semeyn: Kirby waited and failed to obtain tax returns/seek recalculation earlier | Court: Declined to decide because automatic-escalation finding disposes of claim (trial court had invoked laches; appellate court affirmed on other grounds) |
| Validity of trial court’s child-support increase based on 2014/2015 income | Kirby: Requested modification based on material change; court may adjust to current income | Semeyn: Trial court had no evidentiary basis for 2016 support because 2015 income was not in record; AO No. 10 requires specific findings | Court: Reverse and remand — no evidence of 2015 income, order noncompliant with Administrative Order No. 10; remand to complete record and enter compliant order |
| Whether payments into the special-needs trust constitute child support (subject to interest/attorney’s fees) | Kirby: Trust funding obligations are for child’s benefit and should count as child support; interest/fees therefore mandatory | Semeyn: Trust payments are distinct from statutory child support and should not carry interest/fees as child-support arrearages | Court: Trust payments are not statutory child support (different mechanism, mutual contributions, governed by trust provisions); trial court erred in awarding interest and fees on trust payments (reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brandt v. Brandt, 103 Ark. App. 66, 286 S.W.3d 202 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008) (automatic increases allowed only when decree language clearly provides for them)
- Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333, 284 S.W.3d 17 (Ark. 2008) (deference to trial court on credibility and factual findings in domestic-relations cases)
- Hunter v. Haunert, 101 Ark. App. 93, 270 S.W.3d 339 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing domestic-relations findings)
- Bohannon v. Robinson, 2014 Ark. 458, 447 S.W.3d 585 (Ark. 2014) (challenging sufficiency of evidence not required to be raised below to preserve issue in bench trial)
- Berry v. Berry, 2017 Ark. App. 145, 515 S.W.3d 164 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (reiterating standard of review for domestic-relations matters)