Case Title: Stewart v. Norment

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Nancy STEWART v. Billy NORMENT

96-950                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 14, 1997


1.   Parent & child -- child support -- order for arrearages is final judgment
     subject to garnishment or execution until modified or set aside. -- The
     supreme court held that the statutory language of Ark. Code
     Ann.  9-14-234(b) was clear that the General Assembly had
     provided that an order for child-support arrearages is a final
     judgment subject to garnishment or execution until the order
     is modified or otherwise set aside; the fact that an order
     also provides for income withholding to satisfy accrued
     support arrearages is irrelevant in determining whether
     garnishment provides a viable alternative method for
     collecting the arrearage, a conclusion supported by Ark. Code
     Ann.  9-14-202 (Repl. 1993), which states that the remedies
     provided in the child-support enforcement subchapter "shall
     not be exclusive of other remedies presently existing," and by
     Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-218(a)(1)(B) (Supp. 1995), which
     expressly provides that the use of income withholding in
     orders providing for child support "does not constitute an
     election of remedies and does not preclude the use of other
     enforcement remedies."

2.   Parent & child -- child support -- recipient of child-support payments may
     resort to legal process to execute on past-due payments. -- A decree
     providing for child-support payments is a final judgment with
     respect to accrued payments until a party moves to set aside
     or modify the decree; hence, there is no reason why the
     recipient of such a judgment should not be able to resort to
     legal process to execute on the past-due payments, as could be
     done with any other judgment.

3.   Parent & child -- child support -- General Assembly intended to allow
     enforcement of judgment for arrearages by all available means --
     chancellor's order reversed and dismissed. -- Where Ark. Code Ann. 
     9-14-218(a)(1)(B) expressly stated that income withholding is
     not an exclusive remedy, the supreme court concluded that it
     was the General Assembly's intent to allow the enforcement of
     a judgment for arrearages by all available means, including
     but not limited to income withholding; accordingly, the
     supreme court reversed, holding that the chancellor was
     clearly erroneous in quashing appellant's writ of garnishment.


     Appeal from Columbia Chancery Court; Edward P. Jones,
Chancellor; reversed and dismissed.
     David W. Talley Jr., for appellant.
     Vickery & Landers, P.L.L.C., by: Ian W. Vickery, for appellee.

     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     At issue in this case is whether a chancellor may prohibit the
recipient of a final judgment for child-support arrearages from
garnishing the obligor's employer, on the ground that an income-
withholding order provided the recipient with the sole and
exclusive method for enforcing the judgment.  We reverse.
     Nancy Stewart and Billy Norment were divorced on May 30, 1984.
The chancellor awarded Stewart custody of the couple's two minor
children, along with $50 weekly in child support.  The record
reflects a number of orders finding Norment in arrears on his
child-support payments.  On July 10, 1985, Norment was found to be
$1,133.75 in arrears, but had his present support obligation
lowered to $40 weekly due to decreased earnings.  An August 31,
1995 order shows that Norment was $11,653.75 in arrears.  Due to
increased earnings, his support obligation was raised to $128.00
per week, and his employer was ordered to withhold $129 per week
from his income.  Norment moved to set aside this order, and the
trial court held a hearing on the matter.
     On March 6, 1996, the chancellor entered another order,
crediting Norment with $2,150 in child-support payments outside of
the court registry, and reducing his support arrearage to
$9,627.75.  The trial court additionally found that Norment's net
wages had increased to $781 every two weeks, and ordered him to pay
$196.00 every two weeks in child support.  Norment was also ordered
to pay $20 every two weeks to be applied to the arrearage.  To
accomplish this, the trial court directed Norment's employer to
withhold $217 from Norment's wages every two weeks.  This order did
not state that the income-withholding order would be the sole and
exclusive method for payment of the arrearage. 
     Stewart subsequently attempted to garnish Norment's employer
in an attempt to collect on the arrearage, and Norment moved to
quash the writ.  On June 10, 1996, the chancellor entered an order
which provided in part as follows:
When the Court issued the Order of [March 6, 1996] it was
the Court's intention that the additional award of $20.00
every two weeks to be applied to the child support
arrearage would be the sole and exclusive method for the
payment of the arrearage.  Therefore, [Stewart] is barred
from the use of any other method for collection of the
judgment.
     Stewart appeals from this order, and maintains that the
chancellor abused his discretion in quashing the writ.  The case
was certified from the court of appeals as involving a question of
statutory interpretation.
     For her sole point on appeal, Stewart argues that the
chancellor was clearly erroneous in finding that the income-
withholding order entered on March 6, 1996, provided her with the
sole and exclusive method of collecting on the judgment.  In
support of her argument, Stewart cites Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-234(b)
(Supp. 1995), which provides that any order that contains a
provision for child-support payments shall be a final judgment
subject to a writ of garnishment as to accrued installments until
a party moves to set aside or modify the order.
     The statutory language is clear.  The General Assembly has
provided that an order for child-support arrearages is a final
judgment subject to garnishment or execution until the order is
modified or otherwise set aside.  The fact that an order also
provides for income withholding to satisfy accrued support
arrearages is irrelevant in determining whether garnishment
provides a viable alternative method for collecting the arrearage. 
This conclusion is supported by Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-202 (Repl.
1993), which states that the remedies provided in the child-support
enforcement subchapter "shall not be exclusive of other remedies
presently existing", and by Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-218(a)(1)(B)
(Supp. 1995), which expressly provides that the use of income
withholding in orders providing for child support "does not
constitute an election of remedies and does not preclude the use of
other enforcement remedies."
     The facts of the present case are analogous to Sharum v.
Dodson, 264 Ark. 57,