Case Title: Whitworth v. Whitworth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1998-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Clarence WHITWORTH v. Mary L. WHITWORTH
(Strickland)

97-575                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 19, 1998


1.   Appeal & error -- relevant orders must be abstracted. -- All
     relevant orders entered by the trial judge are to be
     abstracted.

2.   Appeal & error -- neither divorce decree nor order abstracted
     -- issues raised not reached. -- Where neither party
     abstracted the divorce decree and order the supreme court was
     unable to consider appellant's arguments regarding whether his
     house or other payments under the parties' divorce decree were
     enforceable as child-support obligations, as opposed to
     determining if these payments merely evidenced a property
     decision of the parties' assets.

3.   Divorce -- appellant claimed no proof presented that he had
     present ability to make payments under decree -- none of
     monies obtained by appellant went to pay obligation to
     appellee. -- Appellant asserted that even if the payments in
     the parties' agreement and decree were in the nature of child
     support, the evidence failed to show that he had the present
     ability to pay them; however, there was testimony on
     appellant's ability to pay and evidence that none of the money
     he obtained, the precise amount of which was unclear, went to
     pay any portion of his obligation to appellee.
   
4.   Divorce -- ability to pay issue never reached below -- matter
     remanded for finding on issue. -- While appellant's abstract
     did include his and his ex-wife's testimony bearing on
     appellant's ability to pay, the trial court never made a
     finding on the issue, nor was it asked to do so; appellant's
     own testimony on this question was not clearly understandable;
     because credibility and demeanor are important factors in
     deciding this case, the supreme court remanded it, instructing
     the trial court to make its finding and ruling on appellant's
     ability or lack of ability to pay.


     Appeal from Faulkner Chancery Court; Michael L. Murphy,
Special Chancellor; remanded.
     Phil Stratton, for appellant.
     Boyd Tackett, Jr., for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     Clarence Whitworth brings this appeal from the lower court's
February 11, 1997 order, finding him in contempt for failing to pay
(1) his former wife's (now Mary L. Strickland) house payments in
the amount of $5,436.00, (2) her one-half share of Whitworth's
business in the sum of $6,705.00, and (3) her reimbursement of
medical insurance premiums in the amount of $1,454.00.  The court
ordered Whitworth incarcerated until he made the foregoing
payments, but held his incarceration in abeyance for 60 days. 
Whitworth filed a notice of appeal before that 60-day period
expired.
     For reversal, Whitworth argues the payments found due
Strickland were merely debts and not child support, and he claims
that, under Article 2,  16, of the Arkansas Constitution, he
cannot be imprisoned for such debts.  Whitworth also asserts that,
even if the arrearages in house payments were in lieu of child
support, he still should not be incarcerated because there was no
evidence that he had the present ability to pay the amounts the
trial court ordered paid.  In addition, Whitworth argues that the
trial court reduced the house and other payments to judgment, and
under Nooner v. Nooner, 278 Ark. 360,