Ryburn v. Ryburn
2014 Ark. App. 108
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Joe and Janet Ryburn divorced in 2004; decree awarded Janet custody and exclusive occupancy of the marital home until she acquired alternate housing or the parties agreed to sell, and required Joe to pay the mortgage, utilities, and certain debts until Janet could pay some herself.
- Joe stopped making mortgage payments years later, initiated foreclosure, and claimed Janet had already moved out so his obligations were satisfied.
- The circuit court repeatedly found Joe in contempt for failing to pay the mortgage as required by the decree and subsequent orders, ordered him to pay arrearages, and issued a body-attachment when he failed to appear.
- Janet moved to hold Joe in contempt and sought compensation (including the appraised value of the home); the court awarded her $104,000 plus interest in June 2011 and reduced child support in May 2011 to $1,218.30/month.
- Joe appealed pro se, raising multiple claims including that the decree was ambiguous, that he was erroneously held in contempt, that the court mischaracterized obligations as domestic support, evidentiary rulings deprived him of defenses, and that the child-support orders lacked required findings.
Issues
| Issue | Ryburn's Argument | Janet's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the divorce decree and settlement should be set aside as ambiguous/misinterpreted | Decree is incomprehensible; court misinterpreted it, leading to erroneous contempt | Decree clearly required Joe to continue mortgage payments while Janet and a minor child occupied the home | Court declined to set aside decree; found the written agreement was clear and upheld contempt finding |
| Whether the court erred in refusing evidence that Janet had left the home (satisfaction of obligation) | Joe sought to show Janet moved out for two years, satisfying his contractual obligation | Janet and court relied on occupancy by a minor child and prior orders; Joe failed to proffer evidence on appeal | Court refused to consider unsupported assertions; no preserved record of excluded evidence, so claim failed |
| Whether the mortgage obligation was a divisable marital debt versus an ongoing contractual/domestic-support obligation and whether $104,000 award was proper | Joe argued debts should be equitably divided and contended award was improper | Janet argued Joe breached the contractual obligation and damages (value) flowed from breach | Court held mortgage obligation was contractual/domestic-support in context and not a dividable marital debt; award to Janet was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the child-support order complied with Administrative Order No. 10 requirements | Joe argued court miscalculated and failed to state payor income, guideline amount, or deviations | Janet defended the order on the evidence but court failed to include required findings | Court reversed and remanded the May 2011 child-support order for compliance with Administrative Order No. 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. State, 287 Ark. 384, 699 S.W.2d 739 (holding pro se litigants are held to same standards as attorneys)
- Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (same principle regarding pro se standards)
- Dawson v. Temps Plus, Inc., 337 Ark. 247, 987 S.W.2d 722 (measure of contract damages restores injured party to position as if contract not breached)
- Parker v. Parker, 97 Ark. App. 298, 248 S.W.3d 523 (trial court determines expendable income for child-support calculations)