Vice v. Vice
2016 Ark. App. 504
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- William and Dee Anna Vice divorced in 1994; decree required William to pay child support for daughters Julia and Lisa (Lisa is severely disabled and requires postminority care).
- An agreed 2007 order set weekly support at $122 covering Julia (minor at that time) and postminority support for Lisa; William paid under that order.
- In May 2014 William petitioned to terminate support: (1) Julia had reached majority and (2) Lisa received Social Security survivor/retirement-dependent benefits after William began receiving Social Security retirement; William sought a credit for those benefits and termination of obligations where appropriate.
- At hearing William testified he was medically unable to work full time, earning only about $3,000/year, and had begun receiving Social Security retirement; the trial court found his testimony not credible and noted he had not sought work and had been denied SSDI.
- Trial court held (a) William failed to plead a claim for a credit for overpaid support for Julia but found Julia’s support obligation terminated by operation of law, (b) imputed full-time minimum-wage income to William and ordered $62/week for Lisa, and (c) awarded Dee Anna $2,694.70 in attorney’s fees.
- William appealed, challenging denial of a credit for Julia overpayments, imputation of income/refusal to credit Lisa’s benefits to him, and the attorney-fee award; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | William's Argument | Dee Anna's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit for overpayment of Julia's support | William argued his obligation ended at majority and he should get a credit for post-majority payments | Dee Anna contested credit; trial court found issue not pled | Denied — William failed to plead or move to amend; no implied consent to try issue |
| Imputation of income for child-support calculation | William argued he cannot work full time due to medical issues so imputing income was improper | Court (and Dee Anna) argued he worked below capacity, lacked corroboration for disability claims, and had not sought work | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; imputed full-time minimum-wage per Admin. Order No. 10 |
| Credit for Social Security benefits paid to Lisa on William's record | William sought credit for $553/mo in dependent benefits offsetting his obligation | Dee Anna contended benefits were insufficient and were not pleaded as William's income | Denied — William never listed or argued those benefits were income; cannot claim credit now |
| Award of attorney's fees to Dee Anna | William argued no statutory authority and Chrisco factors were not applied | Dee Anna argued trial court has inherent authority in domestic relations and properly exercised discretion | Affirmed — trial court has inherent authority; fee award not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Guthrie v. Guthrie, 455 S.W.3d 839 (Ark. App. 2015) (courts may impute income to payors who are working below earning capacity where appropriate, balancing payor choices and child needs)
- Arkansas Child Support Enforcement v. Hearst, 357 S.W.3d 450 (Ark. 2009) (Social Security disability benefits paid to dependent children based on noncustodial parent's disability are income to that parent for child-support purposes)
- Cash v. Cash, 353 S.W.2d 348 (Ark. 1962) (noncustodial parent entitled to credit for Social Security retirement benefits received on behalf of minor child)
- Artman v. Hoy, 257 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2007) (trial court has inherent authority to award attorney's fees in domestic-relations cases)
- Grady v. Grady, 747 S.W.2d 77 (Ark. 1988) (courts reluctant to interfere with payor's personal choices but may impute income when necessary for support)
- Tiner v. Tiner, 422 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. App. 2012) (analysis of Chrisco factors not required in domestic-relations attorney-fee awards)
- Fallin v. Fallin, 492 S.W.3d 525 (Ark. App. 2016) (trial court's familiarity with record supports its discretion in awarding fees)