Court Opinion

ID: 9375942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 15:04:30.391248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.085638
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 122
                       ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                           DIVISION II
                                          No. CV-21-503

                                                    Opinion Delivered   March 1, 2023

 APRIL JOHNSON                      APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY
           APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTEENTH
                                    DIVISION
 V.                                 [NO. 60DR-05-4859]

 BRADLEY JOHNSON                   HONORABLE MACKIE M. PIERCE, JUDGE
          APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
                                   REMANDED TO SUPPPLEMENT THE
                                   RECORD

                               WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

       April Johnson appeals from the order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court that resolved issues

of child support and contempt. On direct appeal, April argues the circuit court erred in (1) its

findings regarding “commissions” and the enforcement of the 2007 child-support order; and (2)

crediting voluntary payments against Bradley’s arrearage. Bradley cross-appeals, arguing the circuit

court erred in (1) retroactively calculating a bonus that was based on his total income; (2) finding

him in contempt; and (3) awarding attorney’s fees to April. Due to a deficient record, we cannot

reach the merits of the parties’ arguments at this time. Therefore, we must remand the case to

supplement the record.

       April and Bradley each take issue with the circuit court’s findings as they relate to the award

of child support based on Bradley’s “additional income.” Specifically important to each party’s

argument is the breakdown of additional income into categories of bonuses and commissions.
        On October 21, 2020, following the July 24 hearing in the latest round of litigation between

April and Bradley and the submission of posttrial briefs, the circuit court issued a letter opinion,

stating, the following:

               I have had an opportunity to review and consider the pleadings, testimony, evidence,
        and post-trial briefs in this matter. I find the following by a preponderance of the evidence.

                [Bradley] shall receive credit for $71,332.00 in direct payments to [April] made
        between May 2009 and June 2020. However, both parties are advised that the Court will
        not give credit for any payments made outside of the Clearinghouse in the future. The Court
        adopts [Bradley’s] argument that commissions and bonuses are separate and distinct forms of
        income. [Bradley] is ordered to pay twenty-five percent of his net bonuses, but not his
        commissions.

                The Court adopts [Bradley’s] argument that [April] sat on her rights for roughly a
        decade and permitted [Bradley] to pay for multiple expenditures for the children. The
        doctrines of estoppel and laches apply and [April] shall not be entitled to any sums of support
        based upon bonuses prior to the filing of her motion on June 3, 2019. Her recovery shall
        consist of twenty-five percent of [Bradley’s] net bonuses since the date of the filing of the
        motion, to be calculated by the attorneys. [Bradley] shall not receive any other specific credits
        for sums paid to Pleasant Valley Country Club on behalf of the children.

                [Bradley] is in willful contempt for his failure to timely submit his W-2 forms, failure
        to provide his tax returns, failure to provide the amounts of his bonuses, and failure to timely
        pay medical bills. [April] shall submit a fee petition on these issues for the Court’s
        consideration.

                With regard to support from August 1, 2020 forward, the Court finds that the shared
        income model will apply. For purposes of determining [April’s] gross income, the parties
        shall utilize only her income from her current employer. [Bradley’s] request to average
        [April’s] salary over a two year period is denied.

                Ms. Dickson and Mr. Rowan are directed to use the findings of this letter opinion to
        calculate the sum of net bonuses due to [April] since June 3, 2019 as well as the current
        support based upon the shared income model. Ms. Dickson will prepare a precedent with a
        copy to the Court and to Mr. Rowan, and Mr. Rowan will have five (5) days to object to the
        form of the precedent.

        A clarification conference was held via Zoom on February 11, 2021. The parties sought

clarification from the circuit court regarding the underpayment of base child support, the correct

                                                   2
amount of monthly child support owed by Bradley moving forward, and issues and calculations

concerning Bradley’s “additional income.” It was Bradley’s position that he owed no support other

than the amount calculated from his salary because the court’s letter opinion obligated him to pay a

percentage of net bonuses, not commissions, from June 3, 2019, forward. He urged that the

“additional income” category on joint exhibit number 2 included bonuses and commissions; however,

for the pertinent years of 2019 and 2020, the total sum of additional income was all commission

based. Bradley stated that for those years, he received no bonus income. Consequently, Bradley

sought clarification from the circuit court on whether he owed child support on his “additional

income” for 2019 and 2020.

       Purportedly, in an email opinion issued on February 24, the circuit court clarified its ruling

regarding Bradley’s additional income as it pertains to his child-support obligation. Following entry

of the final order, this email opinion was then referenced in Bradley’s motion to reconsider and set

aside, arguing it resulted in a fundamental change in the court’s original ruling. Further, on appeal,

Bradley again brings forth arguments related to the circuit court’s rulings on his additional income

and the distinction, if any, between bonus income and commission income for purposes of his 2019

and 2020 child-support obligation.

       A thorough review of the voluminous record before us reveals an absence of the February 24

email opinion written after the clarification hearing. Our rules provide that if anything material to

either party is omitted from the record by error or accident, we may direct that the omission be

corrected and that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted.1 Because it contains

       1   See Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(e) (2020).
                                                   3
information vital to the arguments and issues now before our court for appellate review, we are

unable to address the merits of the case. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to supplement the

record with the February 24, 2021, email opinion. The supplemental record is due in this court

within fourteen days of the date of this opinion.

       Remanded to supplement the record.

       THYER and WOOD, JJ., agree.

       LaCerra, Dickson, Hoover & Rogers, PLLC, by: Natalie Dickson and Lauren Hoover, for

appellant/cross-appellee.

       Dusti Standridge, for appellee/cross-appellant.

                                                    4