Kirkland v. Wright
| Decision Date | 15 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5069,5--5069 |
| Citation | 247 Ark. 794,448 S.W.2d 19 |
| Parties | Margaret Wright KIRKLAND, Appellant, v. James G. WRIGHT, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Brown, Compton, Prewett & Dickens, El Dorado, for appellant.
Ben D. Lindsey, El Dorado, for appellee.
On petition of James G. Wright the chancellor forgave accrued support money payments previously ordered for the minor children of the parties and suspended future reduced payments. That action was taken because the mother (the custodial parent) left the State, leaving their young boy with the father and taking the baby girl with her. The chancellor reasoned tha the boy had been left behind to be supported by the father and that the girl's removal from the jurisdiction of the court defeated the father's visitation rights. On appeal Margaret Wright (Kirkland) contends that any modification of monthly support payments for the children cannot be made retrospectively. She also contends that the failure of the father to visit his daughter was due to his own indifference rather than the distance between the residences of the father and the daughter.
Mr. and Mrs. Wright resided in El Dorado. In 1957 the husband was awarded a divorce. The wife was given custody of their two children, Jimmie, age ten years, and Susie, age one year. The right to visit the children 'at all reasonable and seasonable times' was vested in the father. Mr. Wright was ordered to pay a regular monthly stipend of $100 to Mrs. Wright for the support of the minors. The court retained jurisdiction of the cause for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the parties. About February 1, 1967, Margaret, since remarried, moved to Texas. She took Susie with her, concededly without obtaining permission of the chancellor. Jimmie was left behind and in custody of his father. Two months thereafter James Wright petitioned for the rescission of the support money order. He alleged the removal of Susie from the court's jusrisdiction, his responsibility for Jimmie, and his inability to exercise his visitation rights with Susie. That motion lay dormant for approximately one year, at which time Mrs. Wright (Kirkland) petitioned for a judgment for unpaid support money accruing since February 1967. The matter went to trial on the issues set forth in the two motions described.
It was stipulated that the mother, after remarriage, moved to Texas February 1, 1967; that she took Susie with her; that the mother was making no contribution to Jimmie's support, who was left behind with his father in El Dorado; that Jimmie is in college and is being adied financially by his father; that the father stopped paying support money when the mother moved away; and that Mr. Wright has at all times known the whereabouts of his daughter. The only witnesses at the trial were Mr. Wright and Jimmie, the latter being twenty-one years of age at that time. Wright testified that while the daughter lived in El Dorado he was prevented by the mother from visiting with the child. In that respect he was corroborated by the son. Wright testified that he had received one letter after the move to Texas and that was from Mr. Kirkland. Wright conceded that he had not tried to correspond with his daughter or send her any presents. Just how long the Kirklands remained in Texas is not revealed but it was testified that from Texas, Mr. Kirkland was transferred to Trinidad and his family accompanied him. We presume that is the reason Mrs. Kirkland did not return to testify. On the basis of the answers to request for admissions, the stipulation, and the testimony, the chancellor made these pertinent findings:
1. That James Wright had timely paid the required child support until February 1, 1967;
2. That on the last mentioned date the mother, without the permission of the court or the consent of the father, removed Susie Wright from the jurisdiction of the court, first moving to Texas and then to Trinidad;
3. That Jimmie Wright was left in El Dorado with the father and the mother has not since contributed to Jimmie's support;
4. That the child support should be reduced from $100 a month to $50 a month, and the latter payment suspended until Susie Wright is returned to the jurisdiction of the court so that visitation privileges could be afforded the father; and
5. That the mother should be denied judgment for any support money payments which ordinarily would have accrued after February 1, 1967, the date of her departure, and to the date of trial.
The appellant, Margaret Wright Kirkland, concedes the court's authority to modify from time to time allowances for alimony and maintenance. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34--1213 (Repl.1962). However, it is urged that under our case law 'the modifying decree relates to the future only and from time of its entry, not retrospectively.'
Sage v. Sage, 219 Ark. 853, 245 S.W.2d 398 (1952), appears to be the first case wherein this court squarely faced the question, namely whether courts have the power to remit court-ordered accumulated support payments. That opinion cites the majority rule as reflected in 27B C.J.S. Divorce § 322(1)c. Our court reached this conclusion, which is consistent with the majority rule:
In our opinion the rule that courts have no power to remit accumulated payments under the circumstances here is a sound one and we adopt that view.
We now examine the circumstances in Sage. In the initial proceedings the mother was awarded custody of the two children, subject to visitation by the father, and $45 a month for their support. When the mother took the children to Virginia to live the father elected not to make the payments. Some months later there was a hearing on the father's petition for modification, at which time the accumulated support payments amounted to $450. The trial court relieved the father of that obligation. It was in that setting that this court reversed and announced the recited rule. We should mention that Sage made one concession to a father in like circumstances; the payment of accrued installments can be suspended (not forgiven) until the child is returned to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethell v. Bethell
...accrue, as the equivalent of a debt due. See Brun v. Rembert, supra; Riegler v. Riegler, 246 Ark. 434, 438 S.W.2d 468; Kirkland v. Wright, 247 Ark. 794, 448 S.W.2d 19; Holley v. Holley, 264 Ark. 35, 568 S.W.2d 487. Sage is sometimes cited and relied upon as authority holding that the chance......
-
Sharum v. Dodson
...434, 438 S.W.2d 468; Brun v. Rembert, 227 Ark. 241, 297 S.W.2d 940; Johnson v. Arledge, 258 Ark. 608, 527 S.W.2d 917; Kirkland v. Wright, 247 Ark. 794, 448 S.W.2d 19. A judgment for past due payments is like any other judgment, whether at law or in equity. An execution may issue on any fina......
-
Rogers v. Rogers
...Further, our courts have recognized a general rule that accrued alimony should not be retroactively modified. See Kirkland v. Wright, 247 Ark. 794, 448 S.W.2d 19 (1969). The original alimony award in this case was $350 per month for twelve months plus a $5,000 lump sum. In Rogers II, we rul......
-
Roark v. Roark
...Sharum v. Dodson, 264 Ark. 57, 568 S.W.2d 503 (1978); Johnson v. Arledge, 258 Ark. 608, 527 S.W.2d 917 (1975); Kirkland v. Wright, 247 Ark. 794, 448 S.W.2d 19 (1969); Riegler v. Riegler, 246 Ark. 434, 438 S.W.2d 468 (1969); Nicholas v. Nicholas, 234 Ark. 254, 351 S.W.2d 445 (1961); Carnahan......