Harris v. Harris

• Decision Date: 28 May 2003
• Docket Number: No. CA 02-1170.,CA 02-1170.
• Citation: 107 S.W.3d 897
• Parties: Tom HARRIS v. Donna HARRIS.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

107 S.W.3d 897

Tom HARRIS v.Donna HARRIS.

No. CA 02-1170.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II.

May 28, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Brockman, Norton & Taylor, by: C. Mac Norton, Pine Bluff, for appellant.

Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, PLC, by: Terry F. Wynne, Pine Bluff, for appellee.

WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, Judge.

Tom Harris appeals from an order of the trial court requiring him to continue paying child support for his oldest child who had reached the age of eighteen, graduated from high school, and was enrolled in college.Appellant argues that when his oldest child turned eighteen years old, a change of circumstance occurred by operation of law pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 9-14-237(Repl.2002) sufficient to warrant a modification of his child support obligation.We agree; thus, we reverse and remand.

Appellant and appellee, Donna Harris, were divorced on January 20, 1998.Appellee was awarded custody of the parties' two children, and appellant was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $1,200 per month.The parties' separation and property settlement agreement was incorporated by reference into the 1998 divorce decree and provided, in part, that the $1,200 per month child support payment would "remain at this amount until such time as the children reach the age of 18," and that the parties"shall each be responsible for one-half(½) the reasonable expenses and costs of the college education of the children."

On June 13, 2002, appellant filed a petition to terminate his child support for the parties' oldest child, Lauren, because Lauren had graduated from high school and was about to turn eighteen on June 21, 2002.He also requested that child support for the parties' other child be set in accordance with Arkansas law.In response to appellant's petition, appellee argued that the parties negotiated the amount of child support at the time of the divorce and had agreed that child support was to remain at $1,200 per month until both children reached the age of eighteen.Appellee filed a counter-claim against appellant contending that Lauren was attending college and that appellant had refused to pay for one-half of Lauren's college expenses.

A hearing was conducted on July 8, 2002.At the hearing, appellant testified that when the parties divorced he was making $41,000 per year.He negotiated the amount of alimony and child support that he was to pay and did not use the child-support chart.Appellant stated that he lived with his parents, rent free, for two years after the divorce, so that he could do what he could financially for his children.He acknowledged that the language used in the child-support provision of the agreement did not specify that his child-support obligation was to change upon Lauren reaching the age of eighteen.However, appellant stated that this is what he understood would happen and was part of his consideration for agreeing to pay for half of Lauren's college expenses.Appellant also mentioned that he maintained health insurance on the parties' two children at a cost of $125 per month, which was taken directly out of his paycheck.According to appellant, his current yearly income was approximately $58,000, and he was planning to remarry in August 2002.Appellee testified that although at the time of the divorce she was planning to enter the insurance business, she was not working, which was a factor she considered when negotiating the child-support amounts with appellant.Appellee stated, "I had no doubt in my mind he would pay me $1200 per month until both children were eighteen, even though [when] Lauren turned eighteen Mr. Harris would be responsible for part of her college expenses."Appellee asserted that she needed the entire $1,200 per month child support to pay for the youngest child's tuition of $250 per month, uniforms in the amount of $400 per year, and registration fees.However, appellee testified that after the divorce, with the $1,200 per month child support, she had both the parties' children in private school.At the time of the hearing, appellee was no longer working, but was receiving $24,000 per year in disability, as compared to her prior salary of $25,000 plus commissions.Appellee further mentioned that Lauren no longer lived with her, but that the cost of taking care of Lauren had increased because Lauren now had additional college expenses.Following the hearing, the trial court found that there had not been a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a termination or reduction in appellant's child-support obligation.This appeal followed.

It is well settled that on appeal our review of a trial court's order of child support is de novo, and we will affirm the trial court unless its findings of fact are clearly erroneous.Alfano v. Alfano,77 Ark.App. 62, 72 S.W.3d 104(2002).A finding is clearly erroneous, even though there is evidence to support it, if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.Deluca v. Stapleton,79 Ark.App. 138, 84 S.W.3d 892(2002).In resolving the question of whether the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous, we must give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses.Johnson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.,78 Ark.App. 112, 82 S.W.3d 183(2002).Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to reduce the amount of his child support when his legal obligation to support his oldest child terminated by operation of law.Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-14-237(Repl.2002) provides that the "duty to pay child support for a child shall automatically terminate by operation of law when the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age or should have graduated from high school, whichever is later ... unless the court order for child support specifically extends child support after such circumstances."Accordingly, a noncustodial parent who petitions the court to terminate child support alleging that his child has reached the age of eighteen and has graduated from high school has made a prima facie case for discontinuance of child-support payments.The burden then shifts to the custodial parent to go forward with proof that the child support should be continued.Hogue v. Hogue,262 Ark. 767, 561 S.W.2d 299(1978).

Appellee, however, argues that appellant was bound by the parties' agreement incorporated into the divorce decree to pay $1,200 per month in child support until both of their children reached eighteen years of age.In Scroggins v. Scroggins,302 Ark. 362, 790 S.W.2d 157(1990), the supreme court recognized that a parent who agrees, at the time of divorce, to continue support until the minor children are beyond the age of eighteen commits himself to uphold such an obligation.A parent can contract and bind himself to support a child past the age of majority, and such a contract is just as binding and enforceable as any other contract.Worthington v. Worthington,207...