Hitt v. Maynard

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hitt v. Maynard

576 S.W.2d 211, 265 Ark. 31, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1295

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 5, 1979

Docket78-234

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 576 S.W.2d 211 (Hitt v. Maynard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hitt v. Maynard, 576 S.W.2d 211, 265 Ark. 31, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1295 (Ark. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellee was granted a divorce from appellant. The divorce decree recited that the court adopted a property settlement between the parties including appellant’s agreement to pay $75 a week as support for their 6 year old child. Subsequently, appellant sought a reduction of child support to $37.50 per week, asserting a material change of circumstances and his inability to continue making the agreed payment. The court found, as a matter of law, that he was without authority to modify the child support contract. Appellant asserts this was error and we agree.

A contract between divorced parties with regard to their children’s support, whether or not adopted by the court, is not binding upon the court, and therefore the agreement is subject to modification as the circumstances justify without the parties’ consent. Reiter v. Reiter, 225 Ark. 157, 278 S.W. 2d 644 (1955); Lively v. Lively, 222 Ark. 501, 261 S.W. 2d 409 (1953); Johnston v. Johnston, 241 Ark. 551, 408 S.W. 2d 885 (1966); Collie v. Collie, 242 Ark. 297, 413 S.W. 2d 42 (1967); and Williams v. Williams, 253 Ark. 842, 489 S.W. 2d 774 (1973).

Here appellee argues, however, that this issue is mooted due to the fact that the chancellor ruled the appellant’s circumstances or conditions had not sufficiently changed to justify withholding enforcement of the agreed child support. The record before us does not contain any evidence to justify this argument nor does the decree from which this appeal comes contain the ruling upon which the appellee relies. However, it very well may be upon remand the chancellor may have a basis from the evidence to justify his ruling.

Reversed and remanded.

We agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hickman, JJ-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellee was granted a divorce from appellant. The divorce decree recited that the court adopted a property settlement between the parties including appellant’s agreement to pay $75 a week as support for their 6 year old child. Subsequently, appellant sought a reduction of child support to $37.50 per week, asserting a material change of circumstances and his inability to continue making the agreed payment. The court found, as a matter of law, that he was without authority to modify the child support contract. Appellant asserts this was error and we agree.

A contract between divorced parties with regard to their children’s support, whether or not adopted by the court, is not binding upon the court, and therefore the agreement is subject to modification as the circumstances justify without the parties’ consent. Reiter v. Reiter, 225 Ark. 157, 278 S.W. 2d 644 (1955); Lively v. Lively, 222 Ark. 501, 261 S.W. 2d 409 (1953); Johnston v. Johnston, 241 Ark. 551, 408 S.W. 2d 885 (1966); Collie v. Collie, 242 Ark. 297, 413 S.W. 2d 42 (1967); and Williams v. Williams, 253 Ark. 842, 489 S.W. 2d 774 (1973).

Here appellee argues, however, that this issue is mooted due to the fact that the chancellor ruled the appellant’s circumstances or conditions had not sufficiently changed to justify withholding enforcement of the agreed child support. The record before us does not contain any evidence to justify this argument nor does the decree from which this appeal comes contain the ruling upon which the appellee relies. However, it very well may be upon remand the chancellor may have a basis from the evidence to justify his ruling.

Reversed and remanded.

We agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hickman, JJ-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 S.W.2d 211, 265 Ark. 31, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hitt-v-maynard-ark-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack