Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 472 Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I integrity of this document No. CV-21-8 2023.08.01 09:39:47 -05'00' 2023.003.20244 THOMPSON MANER Opinion Delivered December 1, 2021 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 72DR-13-1985]
KATHRYN MANER HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR, APPELLEE JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge
Appellant Thompson Case Maner (Case) appeals the Washington County Circuit
Court’s dismissal of his motion to reduce child support upon a finding that there was not a
material change in circumstances. Case argues that he proved a material change in
circumstances, and it was erroneous for the circuit court to dismiss his motion. We agree,
and we reverse and remand to the circuit court for further consideration.
Case and appellee Kathryn Maner (Katie) were divorced in December 2013. At that
time, the parties entered into an agreement to share joint custody of their two minor sons;
for Case to pay Katie $8809 a month in child support, with $8000 being paid directly to
Katie and $809 being paid into a trust for the benefit of their sons; that if Case’s child-
support obligation was reduced in the future, the required payments to the trust would
terminate, with all child support then being paid directly to Katie; and to divide the cost of
the children’s attendance at Montessori school and any agreed upon summer camps. Katie carried the children on her health insurance, with the parties paying equal amounts for
premiums and any medical expense not covered by insurance.
In May 2019, an agreed order was entered acknowledging there had been a material
change in circumstances justifying modification of Case’s child-support obligation. The
order recited that Case’s child-support obligation would be $8023 a month if Katie was the
custodial parent, and Katie’s child-support obligation would be $2075 a month if Case was
the custodial parent; thus, Case’s child-support obligation was reduced to $7000 a month.
The parties also agreed to equally share the cost of airfare for the children to travel to tennis
tournaments; tennis lessons, tournament fees, and memberships; School of Rock fees; school
lunches; field-trip costs; and any other agreed upon extracurricular activities.
In January 2020, Case filed a motion to again decrease his child-support obligation,
alleging there had been a material change of circumstances justifying a modification because
he had experienced a reduction in his gross income of more than 20 percent or $100 a
month. Katie filed a counterpetition asserting her income had also decreased in an amount
sufficient to reduce her child-support obligation used as a setoff against Case’s monthly
support amount.
In an order filed October 1, 2020, the circuit court found that the parties equally
divided health and dental insurance premiums, with each paying approximately $200 a
month; that the total noncovered medical and dental expenses over the last fourteen months
were $914, with each party equally responsible for one-half; and that the parties had equally
divided extracurricular and cell-phone expenses of $22,872 over the last fourteen months,
with each party paying an average of $817 a month. The circuit court noted there was a
2 rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the most
recent revision of the family-support chart and the guidelines was the amount to be awarded;
that the child-support obligation for incomes over $30,000 a month was to be determined
using the highest amount in the child-support guidelines; and that the court could also use
its discretion in setting an amount above that to meet the needs of the children and the
parents’ ability to provide support. The circuit court further noted that it would be sufficient
to rebut the presumption that the amount of child support set forth was the correct amount
if the court provided specific written findings that the base amount was unjust or
inappropriate, considering the deviation factors listed in the guidelines. The circuit court
found that Case’s gross income in 2018 was $749,814, or $62,484.50 a month, and that his
2019 gross income had decreased to $641,617, or $53,468.08 a month. The circuit court
determined that Katie’s 2018 income was $153,350, or $12,779 a month, and her 2019
income had decreased to $130,929, or $10,911 a month. The circuit court, noting that it
used the maximum chart amount of $30,000 per month combined income, determined that
the presumed child-support order, if Katie were the custodial parent, would be $2341 a
month. The circuit court stated that it had considered all the factors, including the respective
income of the parties, the amount of income available to support the minor children, and
the lifestyles of the parents and children, and it found that the 15 percent reduction in each
party’s gross income between 2018 and 2019 was not a material change of circumstances
sufficient to warrant a modification of the child-support obligation. The order did not state
that the court had considered additional factors, such as the fact that the parties’ combined
gross incomes exceeded the maximum level of chart support; that Case had remarried and
3 has three children with his new wife whom he is also supporting; or the fact that his two
older sons have 529 education trusts that contained $120,000 and $114,000 at the time of
the hearing. The circuit court then dismissed both Case’s and Katie’s petitions for failure to
meet the burden of proof.
Child-support cases are reviewed de novo on the record. Troutman v. Troutman, 2017
Ark. 139, 516 S.W.3d 733. A circuit court’s finding of fact will not be reversed unless it is
clearly erroneous. Id. Due deference is given to the circuit court’s superior position to
determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony, but
no deference is given to a circuit court’s conclusion of law. Id.
A change in circumstances must be shown before there can be a modification of child
support; the party seeking modification has the burden of showing a change of circumstances
has occurred. Hall v. Hall, 2013 Ark. 330, 429 S.W.3d 219. A change in the payor’s gross
income in an amount equal to or more than 20 percent or more than $100 a month shall
constitute a material change of circumstances sufficient to petition the court for modification
of child support in accordance with the family-support chart after appropriate deductions.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-107(a)(1) (Repl. 2020). 1 In determining whether there has been a
change in circumstances warranting a modification of support, the circuit court “should
consider remarriage of the parties, a minor reaching majority, change in the income and
financial conditions of the parties, relocation, change in custody, debts of the parties,
1 This statutory provision was amended in 2021 and removed the $100-per-month language, but the order in the present case was issued in 2020, prior to the amendment.
4 financial conditions of the parties and families, ability to meet current and future obligations,
and the child-support chart.” Hall, 2013 Ark. 330, at 5, 429 S.W.3d at 222.
The supreme court adopted and implemented the revised Administrative Order No.
10 in a per curiam issued on April 2, 2020.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 472 Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I integrity of this document No. CV-21-8 2023.08.01 09:39:47 -05'00' 2023.003.20244 THOMPSON MANER Opinion Delivered December 1, 2021 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 72DR-13-1985]
KATHRYN MANER HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR, APPELLEE JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge
Appellant Thompson Case Maner (Case) appeals the Washington County Circuit
Court’s dismissal of his motion to reduce child support upon a finding that there was not a
material change in circumstances. Case argues that he proved a material change in
circumstances, and it was erroneous for the circuit court to dismiss his motion. We agree,
and we reverse and remand to the circuit court for further consideration.
Case and appellee Kathryn Maner (Katie) were divorced in December 2013. At that
time, the parties entered into an agreement to share joint custody of their two minor sons;
for Case to pay Katie $8809 a month in child support, with $8000 being paid directly to
Katie and $809 being paid into a trust for the benefit of their sons; that if Case’s child-
support obligation was reduced in the future, the required payments to the trust would
terminate, with all child support then being paid directly to Katie; and to divide the cost of
the children’s attendance at Montessori school and any agreed upon summer camps. Katie carried the children on her health insurance, with the parties paying equal amounts for
premiums and any medical expense not covered by insurance.
In May 2019, an agreed order was entered acknowledging there had been a material
change in circumstances justifying modification of Case’s child-support obligation. The
order recited that Case’s child-support obligation would be $8023 a month if Katie was the
custodial parent, and Katie’s child-support obligation would be $2075 a month if Case was
the custodial parent; thus, Case’s child-support obligation was reduced to $7000 a month.
The parties also agreed to equally share the cost of airfare for the children to travel to tennis
tournaments; tennis lessons, tournament fees, and memberships; School of Rock fees; school
lunches; field-trip costs; and any other agreed upon extracurricular activities.
In January 2020, Case filed a motion to again decrease his child-support obligation,
alleging there had been a material change of circumstances justifying a modification because
he had experienced a reduction in his gross income of more than 20 percent or $100 a
month. Katie filed a counterpetition asserting her income had also decreased in an amount
sufficient to reduce her child-support obligation used as a setoff against Case’s monthly
support amount.
In an order filed October 1, 2020, the circuit court found that the parties equally
divided health and dental insurance premiums, with each paying approximately $200 a
month; that the total noncovered medical and dental expenses over the last fourteen months
were $914, with each party equally responsible for one-half; and that the parties had equally
divided extracurricular and cell-phone expenses of $22,872 over the last fourteen months,
with each party paying an average of $817 a month. The circuit court noted there was a
2 rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the most
recent revision of the family-support chart and the guidelines was the amount to be awarded;
that the child-support obligation for incomes over $30,000 a month was to be determined
using the highest amount in the child-support guidelines; and that the court could also use
its discretion in setting an amount above that to meet the needs of the children and the
parents’ ability to provide support. The circuit court further noted that it would be sufficient
to rebut the presumption that the amount of child support set forth was the correct amount
if the court provided specific written findings that the base amount was unjust or
inappropriate, considering the deviation factors listed in the guidelines. The circuit court
found that Case’s gross income in 2018 was $749,814, or $62,484.50 a month, and that his
2019 gross income had decreased to $641,617, or $53,468.08 a month. The circuit court
determined that Katie’s 2018 income was $153,350, or $12,779 a month, and her 2019
income had decreased to $130,929, or $10,911 a month. The circuit court, noting that it
used the maximum chart amount of $30,000 per month combined income, determined that
the presumed child-support order, if Katie were the custodial parent, would be $2341 a
month. The circuit court stated that it had considered all the factors, including the respective
income of the parties, the amount of income available to support the minor children, and
the lifestyles of the parents and children, and it found that the 15 percent reduction in each
party’s gross income between 2018 and 2019 was not a material change of circumstances
sufficient to warrant a modification of the child-support obligation. The order did not state
that the court had considered additional factors, such as the fact that the parties’ combined
gross incomes exceeded the maximum level of chart support; that Case had remarried and
3 has three children with his new wife whom he is also supporting; or the fact that his two
older sons have 529 education trusts that contained $120,000 and $114,000 at the time of
the hearing. The circuit court then dismissed both Case’s and Katie’s petitions for failure to
meet the burden of proof.
Child-support cases are reviewed de novo on the record. Troutman v. Troutman, 2017
Ark. 139, 516 S.W.3d 733. A circuit court’s finding of fact will not be reversed unless it is
clearly erroneous. Id. Due deference is given to the circuit court’s superior position to
determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony, but
no deference is given to a circuit court’s conclusion of law. Id.
A change in circumstances must be shown before there can be a modification of child
support; the party seeking modification has the burden of showing a change of circumstances
has occurred. Hall v. Hall, 2013 Ark. 330, 429 S.W.3d 219. A change in the payor’s gross
income in an amount equal to or more than 20 percent or more than $100 a month shall
constitute a material change of circumstances sufficient to petition the court for modification
of child support in accordance with the family-support chart after appropriate deductions.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-107(a)(1) (Repl. 2020). 1 In determining whether there has been a
change in circumstances warranting a modification of support, the circuit court “should
consider remarriage of the parties, a minor reaching majority, change in the income and
financial conditions of the parties, relocation, change in custody, debts of the parties,
1 This statutory provision was amended in 2021 and removed the $100-per-month language, but the order in the present case was issued in 2020, prior to the amendment.
4 financial conditions of the parties and families, ability to meet current and future obligations,
and the child-support chart.” Hall, 2013 Ark. 330, at 5, 429 S.W.3d at 222.
The supreme court adopted and implemented the revised Administrative Order No.
10 in a per curiam issued on April 2, 2020. The revised guidelines are based on the Income
Shares Model, which is based on the concept that parents pay the proportional share of their
income that the children would have received if the parents were living together and shared
financial resources. In re Implementation of the Revised Admin. Order No. 10, 2020 Ark. 131
(per curiam). The new guidelines must be used for all support orders entered after June 30,
2020. Id. Section (II)(1) of revised Admin. Order No. 10 provides that
[p]ursuant to Act 904 of 2019, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-14- 107(c)(2), “an inconsistency between the existing child-support award and the amount of child support that results from application of the Family Support Chart shall constitute a material change of circumstances sufficient to petition the court for modification of child support according to the Family Support Chart after appropriate deductions unless:
....
The inconsistency is due to the fact that the amount of the current child support award resulted from a rebuttal of the guideline amount and there has not been a change of circumstances that resulted in the rebuttal of the guidelines amount . . . .”
Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10(II)(1)(b) (2020) (reciting verbatim Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-107(c)(2)).
Katie attempts to apply Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-14-107(c)(2)(B) to the
present case, arguing that the child-support amount set in May 2019 included a deviation
from the guideline amount and gave specific reasons for the deviation, and “the record in
this matter is void of evidence even suggesting a change of the circumstances existing on
May 31, 2019, that resulted in the rebuttal of the guideline amount.” This argument fails
5 to acknowledge the substantial decrease in Case’s monthly income, which constitutes a
material change in circumstances pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-14-
107(a)(1). The circuit court’s finding that Case’s reduction in income was not a material
change in circumstances is clearly erroneous; therefore, we reverse and remand this case to
the circuit court.
Katie argues that the circuit court properly deviated from the presumptively correct
amount found in the family-support chart. It shall be a rebuttable presumption that the
amount contained in the family support chart and the guidelines is the correct amount of
child support to be awarded. Id. at 3; Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-312(a)(3)(C) (Repl. 2020).
Deviations from the guidelines should be the exception instead of the rule; if the circuit
court makes a deviation, it must make written findings and explain the reasons for the
deviation. 2020 Ark. 131, at 5. The presumption that the amount of child support calculated
pursuant to the worksheet and guidelines is correct may be sufficiently rebutted if the circuit
court provides a specific written finding in the order that the worksheet amount is unjust
or inappropriate. Id. Factors enumerated in Administrative Order No. 10(II)(2) to be
considered when deciding whether to deviate include educational expenses for the children;
procurement and/or maintenance of insurances and health insurance premiums for the
benefit of the children; extraordinary travel expenses for court-ordered visitation; the
children’s significant available income; the creation or maintenance of a trust fund for the
children; the support given by a parent for minor children in the absence of a court order;
extraordinary time spent with the payor parent; additional expenses incurred because of
natural or adopted children living in the home; work-related childcare, extraordinary
6 medical expenses, and health insurance premiums; and any other factors that warrant a
deviation. Id. The order in this case contained no written findings as to why the deviation
was warranted or why the chart amount was unjust or inappropriate.
Katie cites Bishop v. Bishop, 98 Ark. App. 111, 250 S.W.3d 570 (2007), for the
proposition that the minimum requirement of a change of income set forth in § 9-14-107(a)
simply entitles a party to file a petition with the court to request a modification of child
support; it does not guarantee a modification. While that is true, as Case points out, Bishop
supports his argument. In Bishop, the circuit court initially agreed to decrease child support
due to a decrease in the payor’s income, but it ultimately determined to leave the $1500-
per-month child-support obligation and $3000-per-month alimony intact after considering
the payee’s health issues, the child’s needs, the length of the marriage, and the payor’s current
and potential income.
Case contends that because the parties do not dispute the income amounts, this court
should set the appropriate amount of child support. However, the circuit court has
discretion to deviate from the presumptive amount of child support, provided it supports
such a decision with proper written findings. Because the circuit court failed to do so, we
remand this case for further findings.
Reversed and remanded.
ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Cullen & Co., PLLC, by: Tim Cullen, for appellant.
Brady & Platt, PLC, by: Kathryn E. Platt, for appellee.