Stacy Donald Roberts v. Kendra Christy Roberts

2020 Ark. App. 61

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 61 Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry Date: 2022.08.10 13:40:08 DIVISION IV -05'00' No. CV-19-168 Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered: January 29, 2020

STACY DONALD ROBERTS APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26DR-13-1025] V. HONORABLE ELLEN BASS BRANTLEY, JUDGE KENDRA CHRISTY ROBERTS APPELLEE AFFIRMED

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

This is a domestic-relations case, and the only issue on appeal involves attorney’s fees.

Appellant Stacy Roberts and appellee Kendra Roberts were divorced on May 28, 2014, and

the parties were awarded joint custody of their two children. On July 14, 2017, Kendra

filed a motion for primary custody of the children. After a hearing, the trial court entered

an order on August 17, 2018, granting Kendra’s motion and awarding her primary custody

of the children. Stacy timely appealed from the trial court’s order changing custody.

On August 20, 2018, Kendra filed a motion for attorney’s fees in relation to the

underlying change-of-custody litigation in which she prevailed. Kendra requested $15,281

in attorney’s fees and $543 in costs. On November 19, 2018, the trial court entered an

order awarding Kendra $9000 in attorney’s fees and $543 in costs. Stacy appealed separately

from the order awarding attorney’s fees. Stacy’s appeal from the order changing primary

custody to Kendra and his appeal from the order awarding Kendra attorney’s fees were submitted simultaneously to this court for decision. The appeal from the attorney’s-fee

award is at issue here.

The only argument raised by Stacy in this appeal is that he should have prevailed in

the underlying change-of-custody litigation; and thus, the attorney’s-fee award should be

reversed. Acknowledging that his appeal challenging the custody order is presently before

this court, Stacy argues that if we reverse in that case we should reverse the order awarding

attorney’s fees as well. 1

Stacy’s argument contesting the attorney’s fees fails because, in the companion case

delivered today, we affirmed the trial court’s order awarding primary custody to Kendra.

See Roberts v. Roberts, 2020 Ark. App. 60 (CV-18-865). Stacy’s sole challenge to the

attorney’s-fee award in this appeal is based on his contention that he should have been the

prevailing party in the change-of-custody litigation. His argument is wholly premised on

the outcome of that appeal, which we have now affirmed and which confirms that Stacy is

not the prevailing party. 2

In domestic-relations proceedings, the trial court has the inherent power to award

attorney’s fees, and the decision to award fees and the amount of those fees are matters

within the discretion of the trial court. James v. Walchli, 2015 Ark. App. 562, 472 S.W.3d

504. Absent an abuse of that discretion, an award of attorney’s fees will not be disturbed on

1 Stacy does not challenge the reasonableness of the amount of the attorney’s fees but only the award of any fees at all. 2 We also observe that while Kendra did prevail in the change-of-custody litigation, there is no requirement that a party “prevail” for the trial court to award attorney’s fees in a domestic-relations case. See Conley v. Conley, 2019 Ark. App. 424, 587 S.W.3d 241.

2 appeal. Id. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the award of attorney’s fees. See

Baber v. Baber, 2011 Ark. 40, 378 S.W.3d 699.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.

T. Clay Janske, for appellant.

One brief only.