506 S.W.3d 261
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Divorce decree (Feb 8, 2013) set appellee (Brown) child support biweekly plus 15% of bonuses/farm income and required him to maintain health insurance for child G.L.B. (age 6 at decree).
- Appellant (Langston) filed motions for contempt and to modify support; appellee later moved to reduce child support after resigning from Walmart (May 9, 2014) and purchasing a small firearms store, claiming reduced income.
- At hearing appellee testified he left Walmart due to alleged harassment and demotion offer, had limited current draws from the new business, and lived off wife’s income and retirement funds; he admitted placing a camera in G.L.B.’s room.
- Trial court imputed $60,000 annual income to appellee for child-support purposes (awarding $542/month retroactive to June 1, 2014), allowed a deduction for health-insurance cost (treating part of $700 premium as attributable to G.L.B.), refused to order removal of the camera (but required it be nonoperational during visitation), and denied treating tax refunds as child-support income.
- Trial court also imputed $2,500 to appellant’s bank-account balance as of the decree entry date; the Court of Appeals reversed that imputation and ordered division of the actual $127.71 present at entry.
Issues
| Issue | Langston's Argument | Brown's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of $2,500 to Langston’s account at decree entry | Imputation was erroneous; funds deposited after decree were not evasive | Court below claimed post-decree deposits were evasive and imputed higher balance | Reversed — court clearly erred; divide actual $127.71 present at decree entry |
| Reduction of Brown’s child support | Support should not be reduced because Brown voluntarily left higher-paying Walmart job; no reliable proof of current income | Brown showed material change in circumstances (income reduction) and credible reasons for leaving; requested modification | Affirmed — trial court did not clearly err in finding material change and imputing $60,000 income; no abuse of discretion |
| Health-insurance premium deduction | No additional cost to add G.L.B.; court erred in attributing a share to support deduction | Court argued equitable allocation of family premium where coverage changed and additional family members affect allocation | Affirmed — court’s equitable allocation of part of $700 premium to G.L.B. was permissible under Administrative Order factors |
| Camera in child’s room | Trial court should order removal of camera from G.L.B.’s room | Brown defended camera (security), offered to disable during child’s visits | Affirmed — appellate court refused to consider undeveloped legal argument and noted no proof of harm; court ordered camera nonoperational during Brown’s custody periods |
| Tax refunds as income for support | Refunds represented withheld amounts that should increase support | Brown said withholding pattern was longstanding (claimed zero dependents); no changed circumstance | Affirmed — no changed circumstances shown; trial courts properly denied retroactive treatment of refunds as income |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Grady, 295 Ark. 94, 747 S.W.2d 77 (1988) (discusses imputing earning capacity and when voluntary employment changes may be treated as income)
- Grable v. Grable, 307 Ark. 410, 821 S.W.2d 16 (1991) (upholds modification based on credible testimony about changed income and emphasizes fact-specific imputation analysis)
- Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 243 S.W.3d 886 (2006) (material change in circumstances standard and appellate review guidance)
- In re Changes to Ark. Rules of Civil Proc., 294 Ark. 664, 742 S.W.2d 551 (1987) (distinguishes permissible administrative orders from prohibited local procedural rules)