JASON BOYD v. CANDACE CROCKER
No. CV-15-1058
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION IV
September 7, 2016
2016 Ark. App. 382
HONORABLE PAMELA HONEYCUTT, JUDGE
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. DR-2014-165]; REMANDED TO SETTLE AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADDENDUM
Appellant Jason Boyd appeals the order of the Craighead County Circuit Court imputing income to him and ordering him to pay child support based on that imputed figure. Boyd contends that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in its application of the “net-worth method” of calculating income for a self-employed payor. Because of a minor deficiency in the record of this case, however, we are unable to reach the merits of Boyd‘s appeal at this time.
Boyd and appellee Candace Crocker were engaged in a relationship that led to the birth of a child, G.B. Crocker filed a petition to establish paternity and visitation, and in response, Boyd admitted that he was G.B.‘s father and that he should be ordered to pay a
At that hearing, the court heard evidence regarding, among other things, Boyd‘s income sources, bank records, and tax returns. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court asked Crocker‘s counsel to prepare proposed findings of facts with respect to Boyd‘s income, after which Boyd would have an opportunity to object before the court issued its written decision. In response, Crocker submitted a “posttrial brief and proposed findings of fact” in which she summarized the evidence of Boyd‘s bank records and asked the court to find Boyd‘s income for child-support purposes to be $11,105 per month and set child support at $1,606 per month.
After receiving Crocker‘s posttrial brief, the circuit court sent a letter to the parties in which it explained that it had actually intended for Crocker to submit an order containing proposed findings of fact, rather than a brief. The court determined, however, that it did not need briefs from the parties on the law; rather, the court had gone ahead and drafted an opinion. The remainder of this letter set forth the court‘s assessment of the evidence and its reasoning in reaching its conclusions as to Boyd‘s income for child-support purposes. The
We must, however, order supplementation of the record to address an omission in the circuit court‘s original letter opinion. That letter, found at pages 79-81 of the record, purports to consist of four pages; however, the second page is missing. The circuit court set out the reasoning behind its decision to use the net-worth method in this letter, and that analysis subsequently formed the basis of the order from which Boyd has appealed. Without knowing the entirety of what the court wrote in this letter, we are unable to satisfactorily determine how the court construed and applied the law, which renders appellate review difficult.
If anything material to either party is omitted from the record, this court may direct that the record be settled and that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted.
KINARD and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Bristow & Richardson, PLLC, by: Kristofer E. Richardson, for appellant.
Tiner, Cobb & Byars, by: Kara L. Byars, for appellee.