Court Opinion

ID: 9659944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:59:11.663591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:13.300445
License: Public Domain

Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, concurring. I agree with the majority opinion, but write separately only to suggest that we may have conflicting precedent in two of the cases cited by the parties. Particularly, in Bachus v. Bachus, 216 Ark. 802, 227 S.W.2d 439 (1950) and Nooner v. Nooner, 278 Ark. 360, 645 S.W.2d 671 (1983), overruled on other grounds, Gould v. Gould, 308 Ark. 213, 823 SW.2d 890 (1992), we have reached different conclusions as to whether a chancery court may divide a lump-sum payment of alimony and child support that is contained in an incorporated agreement. Although the resolution of this issue is not relevant to the case at hand because we have concluded that the entire monthly payment was alimony, it is important to note that we have not been consistent on this matter. In Bachus v. Bachus, supra, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the husband agreed to pay the wife $200 a month “as alimony and support for their four children.” The chancellor approved the agreement and incorporated it into the divorce decree. Id. Soon thereafter, the trial court reduced the lump-sum payment to $150 a month due to changed circumstances. Id. On appeal, we held that: The court erred in reducing the amount of the monthly payments. The parties to a divorce action may agree upon the alimony or maintenance to be paid. Although the court is not bound by the litigants’ contract, nevertheless if the court approves the setdement and awards support money upon that basis there is then no power to modify the decree at a later date. McCue v. McCue, 210 Ark. 826, 197 S.W.2d 938. If changed circumstances should subsequently render the payments inequitable the court may decline to enforce by contempt proceedings the payment of a greater sum than the circumstances warrant, thereby remitting the plaintiff to her remedy at law to collect the balance due under the contract. Pryor v. Pryor, 88 Ark. 302, 114 S.W. 700, 129 Am. St. Rep. 102. Id. Although we did not expressly so hold, we implied in Backus that the trial court did not have the authority to determine how much of the lump-sum payment was for child support and then reduce that portion due to changed circumstances. Since Backus was decided in 1950, we have consistently held that an incorporated agreement regarding alimony cannot be modified by the chancery court. See, e.g., Seaton v. Seaton, 221 Ark. 778, 255 S.W.2d 954 (1953); Hodge v. Hodge, 241 Ark. 712, 409 S.W.2d 316 (1966); Law v. Law, 248 Ark. 894, 455 S.W.2d 854 (1970); Powell v. Pearson, 251 Ark. 1107, 476 S.W.2d 802 (1972); Kersh v. Kersh, 254 Ark. 969, 497 S.W.2d 272 (1973); Songer v. Songer, 267 Ark. 1075, 594 S.W.2d 33 (1980). In contrast, we have firmly held that the chancery court always has jurisdiction to modify child support and custody even if the parties have entered into an incorporated agreement on the subject. See, e.g., Lively v. Lively, 222 Ark. 501, 261 S.W.2d 409 (1953); Reiter v. Reiter, 225 Ark. 157, 278 S.W.2d 644 (1955); Johnston v. Johnston, 241 Ark. 551, 408 S.W2d 885 (1966). Specifically, in Lively, we said that “the power of a court to modify a decree for the support of minor children cannot be defeated by an agreement between the parents even when the agreement is incorporated in the decree.” Lively, supra. The issue then became whether, as in Bachus, a chancellor may segregate a lump-sum payment of alimony and child support contained in an incorporated agreement and then reduce the portion attributable to child support due to changed circumstances. Bachus seemed to indicate that such action was not permissible. In Collie v. Collie, 242 Ark. 297, 413 S.W.2d 42 (1967), the parties entered into an agreement that required the father to pay $150 a month alimony and $7000 a year child support. The chancellor incorporated the agreement into the divorce decree. Id. Seven months later, the father sought modification of both the alimony and child-support arrangements due to changed circumstances. Id. We held that alimony could not be reduced because the agreement was incorporated, and that child support could not be reduced because the father failed to prove any changed circumstances. Id. We then said that: It has been held by this court that when an independent, formal, written contract for alimony and child support has been approved by the chancellor and incorporated in the decree, the trial court has no jurisdiction to reduce the amount of monthly payments provided for or to modify the decree at a later date. Bachus v. Bachus, 216 Ark. 802, 227 S.W.2d 439. The cited case recognized, however, that a chancery court might decline to use its powers to enforce such payments where changed circumstances rendered such inequitable, leaving the parties to their remedy at law. Later decisions have held that the court has power to modify a divorce decree as to provisions for support of minor children on the showing of changed conditions necessitating such a modification, by either increasing or reducing such amounts. Lively v. Lively, 222 Ark. 501, 261 S.W.2d 409. Any apparent conflict in these cases is probably attributable to the fact that the alimony and child support were not provided for separately in the Bachus case, but child support was a separate item in the Lively case. See Reiter v. Reiter, 225 Ark. 157, 278 S.W.2d 644. At any rate we think that the better rule is that a chancery court may withhold enforcement of the payment of child support payments that have become inequitable by change of circumstances and the court may either reduce or increase amounts of child support payments provided for by such agreements because of changed circumstances. The interests of minors have always been the subject of jealous and watchful care by courts of chancery. Myrick v. Jacks, 33 Ark. 425; Crenshaw v. Crenshaw, 203 Ark. 1086, 160 S.W.2d 37. The public interest in the welfare of children is sufficient reason for the exercise of this power, the interests of the children being paramount. Daily v. Daily, 175 Ark. 161, 298 S.W. 1012; Penny v. Penny, 210 Ark. 16, 193 S.W.2d 811; Reiter v. Reiter, 225 Ark. 157, 278 S.W.2d 644. Id. (emphasis added). Admittedly, the emphasized language regarding a chancellor’s authority to divide a lump-sum payment and modify child support is mere dicta because we concluded that there were no changed circumstances proved in this case that justified a reduction in child support. However, the emphasized language clearly indicates a displeasure with the Backus rule because it circumvents our well-established policy of allowing modification of child-support agreements. We addressed the issue a final time in Nooner v. Nooner, 278 Ark. 360, 645 S.W.2d 671 (1983). In Nooner, the parties entered into an agreement, which was later incorporated into the divorce decree, requiring the husband to pay “the sum of $100 per week for support of the wife and two children for the life of the husband.” Id. Because the agreement was incorporated into the decree, we held that the trial court could not modify the amount of the lump-sum payment that was attributable to alimony. However, as to the amount attributable to child support, we said: The Court always retains jurisdiction over child support, as public policy. No matter what an independent contract states, either party has a right to ask for a change in child support. In this case where alimony and child support were not separately stated, the appellant can ask the Chancery Court to make a determination as to how much of the $100 is child support and how much is alimony. Id. Unfortunately, we did not attempt to reconcile this case with our holding in Bachus, supra. Furthermore, since Nooner was handed down in 1983, we have not spoken again concerning whether a trial court may divide a lump-sum payment that is incorporated into the divorce decree and then modify the amount attributable to child support due to changed circumstances. Specifically, we have not yet addressed the apparent discrepancy in the Backus and Nooner holdings. In contrast, the Court of Appeals has wrestled with this issue on several occasions. In most cases, the Court of Appeals has concluded, albeit in dicta, that the chancery court has the legal authority to determine how much of a lump-sum agreement is child support and then modify that portion of the incorporated agreement. See, e.g., Terry v. Terry, 28 Ark. App. 169, 771 S.W.2d 321 (1989); Crow v. Crow, 26 Ark. App. 37, 759 S.W.2d 570 (1988). However, in some cases the Court of Appeals concluded that child support was so intermingled with the other terms of the property agreement that it could not be factually separated from the remaining portions of the incorporated agreement. See, e.g., Reeves v. Reeves, 21 Ark. App. 177, 730 S.W.2d 904 (1987); Hunter v. Hunter, 13 Ark. App. 204, 681 S.W.2d 424 (1985); McInturff v. McInturff, 7 Ark. App. 116, 644 S.W.2d 618 (1983). To say the least, the law in Arkansas is not well developed as to the discrete issue of whether a trial court may divide a lump-sum payment for child support and alimony that is contained in an incorporated decree and then reduce the child-support payments due to changed circumstances. However, as mentioned previously, the reconciliation of Backus and Nooner will have to wait for another day because the agreement in the case before us today only involved alimony payments. Brown, J., joins in this concurrence.