Case Title: Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Troxel

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE of CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT v. Samuel
A. TROXEL

96-588                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 4, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- chancery proceedings -- standard of review.
     -- The standard of review of chancery court proceedings is
     whether the chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous or
     clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 

2.   Divorce -- Arkansas support order may reduce support burden --
     original out-of-state decree not changed. -- An Arkansas
     RURESA order neither nullifies or modifies a prior foreign
     divorce decree unless nullification is specifically provided
     for; the effect of an Arkansas order lowering support payments
     will reduce an ex-spouse's support burden, but it will not
     change or modify the original out-of-state decree. 

3.   Divorce -- local orders contained no language specifically
     nullifying out-of-state decree -- Nebraska decree still valid.
     -- Although appellee was entitled to credit for payments made
     pursuant to Arkansas orders against a Nebraska obligation,
     where neither the 1987 nor the 1989 order entered in an
     Arkansas chancery court contained any language of
     nullification, the Nebraska decree was still valid absent a
     specific nullification. 


     Appeal from Franklin Chancery Court, Northern District;
Richard Gardner, Chancellor; reversed and remanded.
     G. Keith Griffith, for appellant.
     Ernie Witt, for appellee.

     Andree Layton Roaf, Justice.
     The appellant, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE),
petitioned the Franklin County  Chancery Court to register a
foreign divorce decree pursuant to the Revised Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (UIFSA). OCSE sought to pursue child-support
arrearages against the appellee, Samuel Troxel, based on the
support ordered in the divorce decree.  The chancellor found that
an earlier support order entered in Franklin County under the
Revised Uniform Recriprical Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA)
superseded the support order contained in the divorce decree, and
denied the petition.  We reverse and remand. 
     On July 15, 1985, Beth Troxel obtained a divorce from Samuel
Troxel in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska.  Beth
was given custody of the Troxels' child, and was awarded $150 per
month child support in the divorce decree.
     Samuel later moved to Franklin County, Arkansas; Beth and the
child remained in Nebraska. In 1986 Beth filed a RURESA petition in
Nebraska for child-support arrearages.  The Nebraska District Court
entered a RURESA order, certifying that Samuel had accrued   $1,835
in arrears as of October 17, 1986, and forwarding the matter to
Franklin County, Arkansas, where Samuel resided.
     On March 5, 1987, an order was entered in the Franklin County
Chancery Court finding Samuel $2,135 in arrears, and ordering him
to pay current child support in the amount of $70 a month, plus $5
a month toward the arrearages. The Franklin County Chancery Court
entered another order on November 13, 1989, finding that Samuel
owed an additional $1,500 in arrears.  This order again provided
for $70 a month in current support, and $30 a month on the
arrearages. There was no mention of the Nebraska support order or
of the Nebraska divorce decree in either of the Franklin County
orders.
     On February 10, 1995, the Arkansas OCSE filed a petition on
behalf of Beth in Franklin County Chancery Court pursuant to UIFSA,
which had superseded RURESA in 1993.  The petition sought to
register the 1985 Nebraska divorce decree, and alleged support
arrearages of $14,240.19, based on the amount of support ordered in
the decree.  After a hearing on the petition, the chancellor held
that the 1987 Arkansas RURESA order superseded the 1985 divorce
decree, and denied the petition. 
     On appeal, OCSE asserts that the chancellor erroneously found
that the support ordered in the divorce decree had been superseded
by the Arkansas RURESA order.
     We have said that the standard of review of chancery court
proceedings is whether the chancellor's findings were clearly
erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 
McGarrah v. McGarrah, 325 Ark. 81, 924 S.W.2d 453 (1996); Riddick
v. Streett, 313 Ark. 706,