Guffin v. Guffin, CA

• Decision Date: 12 May 1982
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Citation: 632 S.W.2d 446,5 Ark.App. 83
• Parties: Chester John GUFFIN, Appellant, v. Bonnie P. GUFFIN, Appellee. 81-328.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 446

632 S.W.2d 446

5 Ark.App. 83

Chester John GUFFIN, Appellant, v. Bonnie P. GUFFIN, Appellee.

No. CA 81-328.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas.

May 12, 1982.

Smith & Nixon by Griffin Smith, Jr., Little Rock, for appellant.

Gill, Skokos, Simpson, Buford & Owen, Little Rock, for appellee.

CLONINGER, Judge.

Appellant, Chester John Guffin, Jr., and appellee, Bonnie P. Guffin, were divorced in 1969, and appellant was ordered to pay $350 per month for the support of the three minor children of the marriage.

The parties' eldest child became 18 on November 9, 1979, and on September 26, 1980, appellant petitioned the trial court to enter an order relieving appellant of responsibility for the support of the eldest child. In response, appellee moved for an increase in child support payments, owing to changed circumstances and the increased cost of supporting children. The second of the parties' three children became 18 on May 5, 1981.

On May 7, 1981, the trial court entered an order increasing the support payments for the one remaining minor child to $425 per month and found appellant in arrears for past support payments. Appellant urges on this appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the increased payment, and urges that the trial court was in error in awarding support payments for the eldest child subsequent to appellant's filing his petition for relief.

We hold that the basis for the increase in support payments is unsound, but the decision is otherwise affirmed.

Chancery courts have broad powers to modify child support provisions when such modification is in the best interest of the child, and no hard and fast rule can be established regarding specific changed circumstances or the necessary degree of change. Hurst v. Hurst, 269 Ark. 778, 602 S.W.2d 137 (Ct.App.1980). Some of the factors to be considered by the court in fixing an amount to be contributed for child support enumerated in Barnhard v. Barnhard, 252 Ark. 167, 477 S.W.2d 845 (1972), include the needs of the children, the assets of each parent, earning capacities and income and indebtedness. The court in Barnhard further observed that modifications of amounts are to be made according to the necessity of one parent and the ability of the other.

The assumption is that the chancery judge correctly fixed the proper amount for child support in the original decree, Clinton v. Morrow, 220 Ark. 377, 247 S.W.2d 1015 (1952), and an increase in child support must be based upon a showing of changed circumstances. Barnes v. Barnes, 246 Ark. 624, 439 S.W.2d 37 (1969). One seeking modification has the burden of proving that there has been a change of circumstances requiring a modification, Stovall v. Stovall, 228 Ark. 1077, 312 S.W.2d 337 (1958), and whether a modification is justified by changed circumstances is within the sound discretion of the chancellor. Hurst v. Hurst, supra.

In fairness to both of the parties, it is necessary for this case to be remanded to the trial court for further development. There was little effort by the parties to show a change in circumstances since the...