Thompson v. McCain, 428 S.W.3d 502

Divorce decree entered July 14, 2005; property settlement dated June 3–6, 2005 was approved and made part of the decree but not merged.
Alimony specified as $2,000 monthly beginning July 1, 2005; agreement stated it would be incorporated in but not merged into the decree.
Carolyn filed a motion for citation on February 2, 2010 alleging James failed to pay $109,000 in alimony.
October 1, 2010 order found James testified he signed voluntarily and denied coercion; counterclaim dismissed.
December 6, 2010 James moved to set aside the property settlement; circuit court later found him in contempt for nonpayment.
January 24, 2011 contempt order imposed penalties and a back-support payment schedule; May 9, 2011 body attachment proceedings ensued; no appeals filed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether writ of prohibition lies.	Thompson argues prohibition allows review of circuit orders not subject to appeal.	State contends prohibition unavailable where orders are appealable and already entered.	Writ of prohibition does not lie; remedy is appeal.
Whether writ of certiorari lies.	Thompson seeks certiorari to review alleged abuses of discretion.	State asserts certiorari is inappropriate when an adequate remedy by appeal exists.	Writ of certiorari does not lie; appeal was available.
Whether circuit court properly found contempt and imposed sanctions.	Thompson challenges the contempt findings and sanctions as unsupported by evidence.	Circuit court found willful nonpayment and credibility against Thompson; sanctions appropriate.	Court upheld contempt findings and sanctions as within discretion.
Whether the body attachment was an appropriate remedy.	Thompson argues improper service and remedy misalignment.	Attachments were within court’s authority to enforce alimony obligations.	Body attachment sanctioned; appropriate under proceedings.
Whether the property settlement should be voided.	Thompson alleges coercion/undue influence invalidates the agreement.	Record shows voluntary execution and court-approved terms; no basis to void.	No reversal or voiding of the property settlement.

White v. Palo, 2011 Ark. 126 (Ark. 2011) (writ of prohibition only when circuit court lacks jurisdiction)
Beverly Enters.-Arkansas, Inc. v. Circuit Court of Independence Cnty., 367 Ark. 13 (Ark. 2006) (certiorari limited to lack of adequate remedy or illegality)
Chiodini v. Lock, 373 Ark. 88 (Ark. 2008) (certiorari not a substitute for appeal when remedy exists)
Conner v. Simes, 355 Ark. 422 (Ark. 2003) (appeal preferred when available)
Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563 (Ark. 1988) (certiorari not available for mere error when appeal exists)
Manila Sch. Disk No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20 (Ark. 2004) (no certiorari where adequate remedy by appeal exists)
Patsy Simmons Ltd. P’ship v. Finch, 2010 Ark. 451 (Ark. 2010) (illustrates prohibition/appeal interplay)