Young v Young
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 253
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA09-769
JONATHAN YOUNG
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT
V.
KRISTALYNN YOUNG
APPELLEE
March 17, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. DR2006-1150-4]
HONORABLE MARCIA RENAUD
HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE
DISMISSED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
In this one-brief appeal, Jonathan Young challenges an order of the Garland County
Circuit Court finding him in contempt for failing to pay certain monies due pursuant to his
divorce decree. On appeal, Jonathan argues that the trial court erred because (1) the contempt
finding was based upon insufficient evidence; (2) the trial court impermissibly shifted the
burden to him to prove that the proceeding violated the automatic stay; (3) the contempt order
violated both the doctrines of inconsistencies and judicial estoppel; (4) his incarceration before
the contempt order was filed for record violated his right to due process; (5) the orders appealed
from were void ab initio. We hold that because Young has served his contempt sentence, this
case is moot.
Generally, where the terms of a contempt order have been fulfilled, the issue of the
propriety of the contempt order is moot. Swindle v. State, 373 Ark. 518, 285 S.W.3d 200
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 253
(2008). We are mindful that where a case involves issues that are moot but are capable of
repetition, yet evade review, we may elect to settle an issue. Id. We hold that the record
before us does not compel us to do so in this case.
In deciding that this case is moot, we note that Kristalynn’s circuit court attorney
introduced into evidence an order of the bankruptcy court that stated unequivocally that the
automatic stay was lifted. It stated in pertinent part:
The Motion for Relief from Stay is granted for the purpose of allowing the parties to
file pleadings with the Arkansas Court of Appeals or to seek state court remedies that
are not inconsistent with any ruling issued by the Arkansas Court of Appeals in the
underlying Circuit Court proceeding. This Order shall continue in effect should the
Debtor convert his case to a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.
We note that Jonathan’s appellate attorney, who is also his bankruptcy attorney, placed
in the record certain bankruptcy-court documents as well as a transcript from the hearing
wherein the relief-from-the-stay motion was presented. These documents were not presented
to the circuit court, therefore, placing them in the abstract and addendum violates Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4-2. While it may be true that these documents seem to cast doubt about
whether the order lifting the stay accurately reflects the intention of the bankruptcy judge, we
will not consider them in this appeal.
Dismissed as moot.
ROBBINS and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-2-
CA09-769
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.