Adams v. Adams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 441
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA09-1270
RICHARD ADAMS
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT
V.
DIANE ADAMS
APPELLEE
MAY 19, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. DR-2008-1143-5]
HONORABLE JOHNNY R.
LINEBERGER, JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
Appellant Richard Adams appeals the decision of the circuit court of Washington
County denying appellant’s motion to review and reduce child support. On appeal, appellant
argues that the trial court erred in refusing to hear evidence that his child-support obligations
should be reduced due to a material change in circumstances affecting his income and that the
trial court erred in summarily dismissing his petition solely because he voluntarily resigned his
position as a university English professor to attend law school. In reviewing the record, we
agree that the trial court erred in not affording appellant the opportunity to present his case
regarding the circumstances surrounding his decision to voluntarily relinquish his job and
return to school. We reverse and remand.
The parties to this action were divorced on November 14, 2008. The divorce decree
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 441
awarded primary custody of the parties’ minor child with appellee and ordered appellant to
pay appellee $512.00 per month in child support. On June 1, 2009, appellant filed a motion
to review and reduce child support, alleging a material change in circumstances in his income
based on his voluntary resignation from his position as an assistant professor of English at the
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, in order to attend law school at Case Western Reserve
University in Ohio in August 2009. At the hearing on appellant’s motion, appellant called
one witness, Lindy Churchill, who was the custodian of the business records for the payroll
department at the University of Arkansas. Ms. Churchill verified that appellant was not
terminated from his employment with the university, but left because of personal reasons.
Upon ascertaining that appellant left his job voluntarily, the trial judge excused the
witness and denied appellant’s motion without allowing appellant to present any further
testimony or evidence. The trial judge concluded the hearing by saying that he knew of no
basis in the law that would allow the court to excuse a parent’s child-support obligations
because a parent quit his or her job “to do something different.” The court entered its order
on September 3, 2009, denying appellant’s motion “for the reasons cited from the bench[.]”
We review child-support awards de novo on the record. Davie v. Office of Child Support
Enforcement, 349 Ark. 187, 191, 76 S.W.3d 873, 875 (2002) (citing Nielsen v. Berger-Nielsen,
347 Ark. 996, 69 S.W.3d 414 (2002)). In de novo review cases, we will not reverse a finding
of fact by the trial judge unless it is clearly erroneous; however, a trial court’s conclusions of
law are not afforded the same deference. Id. A trial court does not have a better opportunity
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 441
to apply the law than does an appellate court. City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park, Inc.,
323 Ark. 332, 339-40, 916 S.W.2d 95, 99 (1996).
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition solely because he
voluntarily resigned his position as a university English professor in order to attend law school.
However, we have no evidence or testimony to consider on this point whatsoever because
the trial court only permitted appellant to call one witness. The trial court quickly found that
appellant could not avoid his child-support obligations by terminating his employment to seek
further education, stating as follows: “That’s not the law in this state. Self-inflicted wounds
never allow somebody to avoid their child support obligations. . . . But whatever the
situation is, it’s the law of the land. . . . I hope he does improve himself substantially, but I
don’t know of any basis for this.”
Although diminution of earnings is a common ground for modification, we have held
that a petition for modification will be denied if the change in financial condition is due to
the fault, voluntary wastage, or dissipation of one’s talents or assets. Reid v. Reid, 57 Ark.
App. 289, 293, 944 S.W.2d 559, 562 (1997). This is not to say that circumstances do not
exist where a reduction in income is appropriate; the trial court must judge the facts and
circumstances surrounding each case individually because situations do exist where income
reductions are reasonable and justifiable. Grady v. Grady, 295 Ark. 94, 98, 747 S.W.2d 77,
79 (1988); see Grable v. Grable, 307 Ark. 410, 821 S.W.2d 16 (1991) (affirming a chancellor’s
reduction of child-support obligations when the supporting parent voluntarily resigned his
-3-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 441
position because his previous employer was facing bankruptcy).1
Where the trial court erroneously applies the law and an appellant suffers prejudice,
the ruling should be reversed. Davie, 349 Ark. at 191, 76 S.W.3d at 875. Our review of the
hearing record reveals that the trial court erred in ruling that no circumstances could exist
under Arkansas law to find reasonable cause justifying appellant’s voluntarily quitting his job.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to hear evidence that his
child-support obligations should be reduced due to a material change in circumstances
affecting his income. Because we reverse on the first point on appeal, we need not address
the other issues raised by appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
PITTMAN and HART, JJ., agree.
Cf., Arnold v. Arnold, 117 P.3d 89 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (noting that an actual
decrease in the supporting parent’s income due to his voluntary return to school would
not typically result in a reduction in child-support obligations), and State v. Bauer, 769
N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 2009) (determining that it was in the child’s best interest for her
supporting parent to stay in school to earn a degree that would result in a higher earning
capacity).
1
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.