Hapney v. Hapney, CA

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
Writing for the CourtCOOPER; CRACRAFT, C.J., and DANIELSON
Citation824 S.W.2d 408,37 Ark.App. 100
PartiesHenry L. HAPNEY, Appellant, v. Renate E. HAPNEY, Appellee. 91-204.
Docket NumberNo. CA,CA
Decision Date26 February 1992

Page 408

824 S.W.2d 408
37 Ark.App. 100
Henry L. HAPNEY, Appellant,
Renate E. HAPNEY, Appellee.
No. CA 91-204.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas,
Division I.
Feb. 26, 1992.

[37 Ark.App. 101] Thurman Ragar, Jr., Van Buren, for appellant.

Hal W. Davis, Fort Smith, for appellee.

COOPER, Judge.

The parties in the chancery case had been married for twenty-four years at the time of their divorce in November 1984. Under their divorce decree, the appellant's military retirement was found to be marital property and subject to division by the court. The appellee was awarded $300.00 per month as her equitable share of the military retirement. Subsequently, the appellant's Veterans Administration disability benefits were increased, causing a concomitant reduction in his military retirement pension, which is now only $400.00 per month. The appellant had arranged for the $300.00 per month payment to be made to the appellee directly by the Department of Military Retirement. After the appellant elected to take an increase in disability benefits, which caused his retirement benefits to be reduced to $400.00 per month, the direct payments to the appellee by the Department of Military Retirement were reduced to $200.00 per month pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A. § 1408(e)(1) (Supp.1991). Consequently, the appellee filed a petition for contempt in the chancery court which had

Page 409

entered the decree of divorce. The chancellor found the appellant in contempt, entered a judgment for arrearages, and awarded attorneys' fees. From that decision, comes this appeal.

For reversal, the appellant contends that the chancellor erred in finding that the $300.00 per month payment was alimony; in taking jurisdiction to hear the appellee's contempt petition; and in failing to follow federal law which prohibits the court from taking action against the appellant. We find no error, and we affirm.

The appellant first contends that the chancellor erred in finding the $300.00 per month payment to be alimony. We find no merit in this contention because the record reflects that the chancellor made no such finding. Instead, the chancellor noted in his letter opinion that the parties entered into an agreement concerning the division of marital property which was incorporated into the divorce decree. The chancellor further found that the agreement required the appellant to pay the appellee $300.00 per month by the fifth day of each month, and that this amount was less than one-half of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Marriage of McElroy, In re, 94CA0957
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • August 10, 1995
    ...of marriage based primarily on federal preemption. McHugh v. McHugh, 124 Idaho 543, 861 P.2d 113 (Idaho App.1993); Hapney v. Hapney, 37 Ark.App. 100, 824 S.W.2d 408 (1992); Wallace v. Fuller, 832 S.W.2d 714 (Tex.App.1992); Inzinna v. Inzinna, 456 So.2d 691 (La.App.1984); but see Campbell v.......
  • Surratt v. Surratt, CA 03-863.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arkansas
    • February 25, 2004
    ...judge from awarding alimony or relieve a military retiree of satisfying that obligation. We dealt with the Act in Hapney v. Hapney, 37 Ark.App. 100, 824 S.W.2d 408 (1992). After twenty-four years of marriage, the parties were divorced, and the husband's military retirement was found to be m......
  • Abernethy v. Fishkin, 93-661
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 10, 1994
    ...from his personal funds regardless of their source. 13 See Clauson v. Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257, 1262-64 (Alaska 1992); Hapney v. Hapney, 824 S.W.2d 408, 409-10 (Ark.Ct.App.1992); McHugh v. McHugh, 124 Idaho 543, 861 P.2d 113, 115-16 (Ct.App.1993); Owen v. Owen, 14 Va.App. Page 164 623, 419 S.......
  • Scheidel v. Scheidel, 19,937.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • May 31, 2000
    ...that husband remit to former wife certain money that he had waived in order to receive disability benefits), with Hapney v. Hapney, 37 Ark.App. 100, 824 S.W.2d 408, 409 (1992) (affirming award of support because the "divorce decree did not purport to award the [wife] a portion of the [husba......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT