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.

Hackney v. Hackney

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III

February 25, 2015

OKSANA HACKNEY, APPELLANT
v.
JOSH HACKNEY, APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTEENTH DIVISION. NO. 60DR2010-1912. HONORABLE VANN SMITH, JUDGE.

Worsham Law Firm, P.A., by: Richard E. Worsham, for appellant.

Tripcony, May & Associates, by: James L. Tripcony, for appellee.

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge. KINARD and BROWN, JJ., agree.

OPINION

Page 395

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

Oksana Hackney appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order of February 7, 2014, clarifying appellee Josh Hackney's visitation with the parties' minor son. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred by: (1) modifying previous orders without a motion; (2) modifying previous orders without finding a material change in circumstances; and (3) requiring the child to travel from Houston, Texas, to Lonoke, Arkansas, twice a month. We affirm.[1]

I. Procedural History

The parties were divorced on December 9, 2010, and appellant was awarded sole physical custody of the parties' minor son, J.H., born November 2, 2006. Appellee was awarded visitation that included alternating weekends, alternating Christmas holidays, alternating Thanksgiving holidays, and two weeks in the summer. Appellant later remarried and moved with the child to Houston, Texas.

By order dated August 21, 2013, the circuit court ruled on appellee's motion for modification and contempt and appellant's motion for contempt. Paragraph 31 of that order states:

The Court orders that the [appellant] be responsible for the transportation expenses for the minor child one time per month in the months of September, October, January, February, March or April, depending when spring break

Page 396

falls, and May of each year. The parties shall split all transportation expenses related to the summer visitation, Thanksgiving, Christmas and spring break holiday transportation.

Appellant filed a motion for clarification and for other relief on September 3, 2013, and asked for, among other things, clarification of paragraph 31 of the August 21, 2013 order, requesting whether the court modified appellee's visitation to one weekend per month, as the decree allowed for alternating ...


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.