Tiner v. Tiner, 2012 Ark. App. 483

Background

Betty Tiner sought enforcement of a property settlement incorporated into a divorce decree requiring Bill Tiner to pay Betty $400,000 in a lump sum for Betty’s one-half interest in Benton Transmission assets.
The circuit court on remand found Bill in contempt for failing to pay, granting Betty a judgment for the balance and ordering $3,000 monthly installments until paid, plus other non-appealed obligations.
Betty contested (1) the circuit court’s modification of the lump-sum provision to monthly installments, and (2) the court’s consideration of attorney’s fees under Chrisco factors.
The appellate court previously held there was no judgment upon which to execute since the property settlement was an independent contract, and remanded for proper enforcement.
On remand, the circuit court held Bill in contempt in 2011, but Betty challenges the validity of converting the lump-sum to installments and the form of the judgment, while seeking larger attorney’s fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court could modify the lump-sum provision	Tiner argues the lump sum was a fixed term and binding.	Tiner contends modification was necessary due to financial issues and should be allowed.	No; the court erred in modifying the material terms of the property settlement.
Whether the modification was a proper use of contempt powers	Modification served as coercion to compel payment as ordered.	Courts may use contempt to enforce or adjust obligations.	Modification cannot be sustained as contempt; it improperly altered the contractual terms.
Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded under Chrisco in domestic-relations	Stout required explicit Chrisco analysis for fee awards.	Stout should not control; discretion to award fees rests with the trial court.	Overruled Stout to the extent it mandated strict Chrisco findings; affirmed fee award as not abusing discretion.
Whether the judgment amount was a sum certain and properly entered	Awarded judgment for unpaid balance and interest.	Judgment entry post-dates remand and was not a sum certain.	Remand for entry of an appropriate sum certain judgment.

Key Cases Cited

Gentry v. Gentry, 327 Ark. 266, 938 S.W.2d 231 (1997) (independent property settlement cannot be modified by the court)
Brewer v. Brewer, 239 Ark. 614, 390 S.W.2d 630 (1965) (property settlements are binding contracts)
Evans v. Evans, 92 Ark. App. 170, 211 S.W.3d 584 (2005) (contempt power and modification context in domestic-relations)
Williams v. Ramsey, 101 Ark. App. 61, 270 S.W.3d 345 (2007) (civil vs. criminal contempt; coercive vs. punitive relief)
Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002) (recognition of Chrisco factors in attorney’s fees)
Bailey v. Rahe, 355 Ark. 560, 142 S.W.3d 634 (2004) (statutory/fee considerations; authority for attorney’s fees in specific contexts)
South Beach Beverage Co. v. Harris Brands, Inc., 355 Ark. 347, 138 S.W.3d 102 (2003) (fee-award considerations in statutory contexts)
Chisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990) (factors guiding attorney’s fee awards (Chrisco factors))
Davis v. Williamson, 359 Ark. 33, 194 S.W.3d 197 (2004) (extension of Chrisco considerations into domestic-relations)
Robinson v. Champion, 251 Ark. 817, 475 S.W.2d 677 (1972) (recognition of broad factors in fee determinations)
Paulson v. Paulson, 8 Ark. App. 306, 652 S.W.2d 46 (1983) (factors for attorney’s fees assessing effort and results)
Deaton v. Deaton, 11 Ark. App. 165, 668 S.W.2d 49 (1984) (domestic-relations fee considerations)
Stout v. Stout, 2011 Ark. App. 201, 378 S.W.3d 844 (2011) (requirement of Chrisco analysis in domestic-relations (overruled here))