Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Colley v. Colley

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II

December 10, 2014

KENNETH COLEMAN COLLEY II, APPELLANT
v.
AUDREY HAMILTON COLLEY, APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, GREENWOOD DISTRICT. NO. DR-2011-332-G (II). HONORABLE ANNIE POWELL HENDRICKS, JUDGE.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Ronald W. Metcalf, P.A., by: Ronald W. Metcalf, for appellant.

Gean, Gean & Gean, by: Roy Gean III, for appellee.

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge. WYNNE and BROWN, JJ., agree.

OPINION

Page 275

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

Kenneth Coleman Colley II, a self-employed contractor, brings this child-support case before us for the second time. The primary issue is the procedure to be used for determining the amount of his income for purposes of child support. We dismissed the first appeal without prejudice because of a lack of finality in the circuit court's decree that granted Audrey Hamilton Colley's complaint for divorce. Colley v. Colley, 2014 Ark.App. 194. The circuit court subsequently entered a final order as to payment of child support, ordering Mr. Colley to pay $900 monthly for support of the parties' minor child. Mr. Colley now appeals the final order of child support, entered on April 23, 2014.

In his first three points, Mr. Colley contends that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in calculating child support under Administrative Order No. 10:

I. After the circuit court found that his income tax records were unreliable for determining child support, it erred as a matter of law by failing to follow appropriate procedure for determining his net worth and to consider factors required for determination of child support.
II. The circuit court erred as a matter of law by failing to consider depreciation as it pertains to child support.
III. The circuit court erred as a matter of law by failing to consider interest expense, a valid business deduction under the federal tax code, as a valid corporate deduction in its child-support analysis.

Mr. Colley also contends:

IV. The circuit court's finding that he clearly earns more than his reported income of $1,950 monthly--based on his travels and ability to purchase a boat, four-wheelers and vehicles, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.