Boudreaux v. Boudreaux
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 877
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CA 09-567
No.
TROY L. BOUDREAUX
APPELLANT
Opinion Delivered December
16, 2009
V.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 2007-003252]
ANN MCNULTY BOUDREAUX
APPELLEE
HONORABLE MACKIE PIERCE,
JUDGE
DISMISSED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
This is the second appeal in this divorce case. While the first appeal was pending, Troy
Boudreaux petitioned to modify his alimony and child-support obligations to his former wife
Ann McNulty Boudreaux. The circuit court denied the petition, ruling that it had no jurisdiction
to consider the matter due to the pending appeal before this court. Troy has appealed from that
ruling, arguing that the circuit court did in fact have jurisdiction to consider his request.
However, the outcome of the first appeal has rendered this appeal moot. Accordingly, we
dismiss.
Ann filed for divorce on June 29, 2007, and the circuit court entered a decree of divorce
on July 22, 2008. Among other things, the decree awarded alimony and child support to Ann.
Troy pursued an appeal to this court, wherein he argued that the circuit court erred in
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 877
calculating his income as if he was an independent contractor when the evidence showed that
he had recently been switched to an employee. While the appeal was pending, Troy filed a
petition to modify alimony and child support, citing the reduced income as a result of his
employment status. On April 30, 2009, the circuit court entered an order denying the motion,
ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion during the pendency of the appeal.
Meanwhile, we considered the first appeal, and on October 21, 2009, we reversed and remanded
the divorce decree, agreeing with Troy’s argument that the circuit court erred in how it
calculated his income for child-support purposes. See Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 2009 Ark. App.
685, ___ S.W.3d ___.
In this second appeal, Troy seeks reversal of the circuit court’s April 30, 2009 order. He
challenges the finding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion to modify
alimony and child support while the first appeal was still pending. However, our disposition in
the first appeal renders this appeal moot.
As a general rule, the appellate courts of this state will not review issues that are moot.
Shipp v. Franklin, 370 Ark. 262, 258 S.W.3d 744 (2007). To do so would be to render advisory
opinions, which we will not do. Id. A case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would
have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. Id. In other words, a moot
case presents no justiciable issue for determination by the court. Id. There are two exceptions
to this doctrine (those matters capable of repetition yet evade review and those matters that raise
considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent further
-2-
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 877
litigation), see Bryant v. Bryant, 2009 Ark. App. 231, ___ S.W.3d ___, but neither is applicable
here.
When we reversed the original divorce decree, the parties were restored to the position
they were in prior to the order being entered. See Lowe v. Morrison, 270 Ark. 668, 606 S.W.2d 569
(1980); Palmer v. Carden, 239 Ark. 336, 389 S.W.2d 428 (1965). Because we reversed the original
divorce decree, the circuit court will have to recalculate alimony and child support. It is possible
that a different order would result on remand, rendering any opinion in the current appeal
merely advisory. For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Dismissed.
HENRY and BAKER, JJ., agree.
-3-
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.