Court Opinion

ID: 9631015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:26:52.459563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:47.195847
License: Public Domain

Karen R. Baker, Judge, dissenting. In this case, the trial court was presented with only two facts to consider in determining whether to modify the 2003 order: first, that Ms. Burroughs was working at Hardee’s when the 2003 order was entered and was still working there making the same amount of money at the time of the hearing on OSCE’s motion to modify; and second, that Mr. Kendall testified that, at the time the 2003 order was entered, he expected Ms. Burroughs to move to Texas. Based on this testimony the majority concludes that there was a material change in circumstances and that the trial court erred in finding otherwise, and it reverses and remands the case for the trial court to set an appropriate amount of child support. In so holding, the majority shows no deference to the trial court. See Tucker v. OCSE, 368 Ark. 481, 247 S.W.3d 485 (2007) (stating that in child-support cases, we give due deference to the trial court’s superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony; and in a child-support determination, the amount of child support lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the lower court’s findings will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion). In support of its holding, the majority restates OCSE’s interpretation of the holding in McKinney v. McKinney, 94 Ark. App. 100, 226 S.W.3d 37 (2006), implying that McKinney held that when a party’s expectations are not met a material change in circumstances has occurred. That was not the holding in McKinney. The court in McKinney held that it was not clearly erroneous for the trial court to consider the change in anticipated income as a factor in determining whether a material change in circumstances had occurred. It is clear from the record in this case that the trial judge did consider the fact that Mr. Kendall thought Ms. Burroughs was planning to move to Texas, and determined that this fact was not sufficient to establish a change in circumstances allowing modification of the 2003 order. In reversing the trial court, the majority opinion addresses OCSE’s argument from their appellate brief that the 2003 order was a deviation from the amount that would have been presumed correct from the proper application of Administrative Order No. 10. This argument was not made to the trial court. The majority opinion also addresses OCSE’s argument that the October 2003 order that provided no support was the result of a rebuttal of the guidelines under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-107. Neither was this argument made to the trial court. Because OCSE did not raise or contend before the trial court either of these arguments, the majority opinion improperly addresses the issues. See McKinney, 94 Ark. App. at 107, 226 S.W.3d at 42 n.3 (stating that we occasionally discern issues in appeals that might have merit but were either not preserved for review by raising it before the trial court or by not arguing the matter on appeal, or both; yet, we would violate basic appellate jurisprudence if we began raising and addressing the merits of unappealed issues). Even under our de novo standard of review, we examine the record to determine whether the trial court had the opportunity to consider a particular argument and erred in addressing the issue presented. See Thompson v. Fischer, 364 Ark. 380, 220 S.W.3d 622 (2005) (where nothing appears in the record reflecting that a particular argument was formulated before the trial court, or that any ruling was given, the appellant has waived review of that issue). Even had OCSE argued below that the 2003 order was an unsupported deviation from the child-support chart, the 2003 order was not appealed. The majority’s decision effectively allows OSCE to challenge an order entered almost four years earlier and to do so without making the argument to the trial court. Accordingly, I dissent.