Klever v. Klever
2017 Ark. App. 330
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John and Kimberly Klever divorced in 2008; decree required John to pay $2,000/month "until one party either dies or the Plaintiff remarries," characterized as payments "in lieu of child support" and continuing after the child turned 18.
- The Klevers’ son is autistic and has Down Syndrome; he was 17 at divorce and later received SSI benefits.
- In 2016 John moved to reduce or abate alimony, alleging (1) the son receives SSI, (2) Kimberly may have inherited money, and (3) Kimberly is employed by the school district.
- Kimberly moved to dismiss under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the alimony was an agreed contractual provision incorporated into the decree and therefore not unilaterally modifiable; she also argued John failed to plead a material change in circumstances.
- The circuit court held a telephonic hearing, heard Kimberly’s testimony, and dismissed John’s motion on the ground that the decree was an agreed decree and the alimony provision was not subject to modification except by consent.
- The Court of Appeals found the circuit court went beyond the pleadings (considering testimony and extraneous materials), effectively converted the proceeding into a bench trial without proper notice or full development of the issues, and therefore reversed and remanded for trial on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Klever) | Defendant's Argument (Kimberly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alimony provision in the agreed divorce decree is unilaterally modifiable | The alimony was an award of the court and therefore modifiable without Kimberly’s consent | The alimony was an agreed contractual provision incorporated into the decree and not subject to modification except by agreement | Court did not decide substance; remanded for a trial because factual development was needed |
| Whether John pleaded sufficient facts showing a material change in circumstances to permit modification | Alleged changed circumstances (son receiving SSI, possible inheritance, Kimberly’s employment) support reduction/abatement | No material change: son’s disability and expected SSI were known; Kimberly’s income was roughly constant; inheritance not yet distributed | Court declined to rule on this; remanded for full development and trial |
| Whether the circuit court properly resolved a 12(b)(6) motion after considering testimony and extraneous materials | N/A (procedural claim raised by appellate court) | N/A | Court held the circuit court improperly considered matters outside the complaint, converting the proceeding into a bench trial without notice; reversal and remand for trial on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Eisen, 97 Ark. App. 130 (stating a court may not look beyond the complaint on a 12(b)(6) motion)
- Guthrie v. Tyson Foods, 285 Ark. 95 (court must not rely on counsel argument or exhibits in ruling on a 12(b)(6))
- Oldner v. Villines, 328 Ark. 296 (court may not base dismissal on matters outside pleadings)
- Battle v. Harris, 298 Ark. 241 (same principle limiting consideration to the complaint on a 12(b)(6))
- Bayird v. Floyd, 2009 Ark. 455 (a 12(b)(6) motion converts to summary judgment if the court considers matters outside the pleadings)
- Hannon v. Armorel Sch. Dist. No. 9, 329 Ark. 267 (receipt of testimony at summary-judgment hearing converts the matter into a bench trial)
- Honeycutt v. City of Fort Smith, 327 Ark. 530 (examining the substance of an order to determine whether it was a summary judgment or bench-trial judgment)