Court Opinion

ID: 9662869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:20:35.871592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:43.416678
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting in part. The majority court correctly upholds the trial court’s finding that the parties entered into an agreement that, commencing in 1982, appellee would pay child support in the reduced amount of $200 per month and then increase it in monthly amounts to $225 in 1984 and to $250 in 1987. While this agreement varied from the parties’ earlier agreement which was incorporated into their 1978 decree, this court has sanctioned such variances in or modification agreements of both alimony and child support payments. See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 297 Ark. 377, 761 S.W.2d 941 (1988); Bethell v. Bethell, 268 Ark. 409, 597 S.W.2d 576 (1980). After correctly affirming the trial judge’s finding of a modified child support agreement entered into by the parties in 1982, the majority then mistakenly proceeds to apply Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-314 (as amended by Act 1057 of 1987) so that agreement is not enforceable after July 20, 1987 — the effective date of Act 1057 (now codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-314(a)(b)(c) and (d) (Supp. 1989)).1 In other words, the majority first recognizes the validity of the parties’ 1982 child support agreement and enforces it until July 20, 1987, at which time the court abrogates the parties’ agreement and reinstates their 1978 decree and its child support directives. In sum, the majority’s decision not only improperly applies Act 1057 of 1987 retroactively to reinstate support payments in the parties’ 1978 deeree, Huffmanv. Dawkins, 273 Ark. 520, 622 S.W.2d 159 (1981), it also places a construction on that Act which unconstitutionally impairs the parties’ 1982 contractual obligation. See James v. Cheney, 253 Ark. 926, 489 S.W.2d 785 (1973);U.S. Const, art. 1, § 10 and Ark. Const.art. 2, § 17. Here, the parties’ child support rights and obligations were modified and vested in 1982. Under these circumstances, Act 1057 should not be applied to nullify the parties’ prior existing child support agreement. It is settled law that all legislation is intended to act only prospectively, and all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the Legislature to give them a retroactive effect is expressly declared or necessarily implied from the language used. Chism v. Phelps, 228 Ark. 936, 311 S.W.2d 297 (1958). When enacting Act 1057, the Legislature gave no hint that it intended to affect prior agreements such as the one entered into by the parties here in 1982. The trial court, and this court on appeal, determined that the 1982 agreement lawfully supplanted the support agreement previously incorporated in the 1978 decree. This court now errs in using Act 1057 to reinstate and enforce the parties’ original agreement. For the reasons given above, I would affirm this cause in all respects. Hays, J., joins this dissent.   As set out in the majority opinion, § 9-12-314(b) and (c) requires a party to file a motion to modify a decree and until that is done, the child support amounts payable under the decree and through the registry of the court shall have accrued as final judgments.