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.

Warner v. Warner

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III

February 6, 2019

RUSSELL WARNER APPELLANT
v.
MELISSA WARNER APPELLEE

          APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 63DR-11-1259] HONORABLE ROBERT HERZFELD, JUDGE.

          Jensen Young & Houston, PLLC, by: Brent Houston, for appellant.

          Mann & Kemp, PLLC, by: Angela Mann, for appellee.

          RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge.

         The parties were divorced by decree of the Saline County Circuit Court in 2012. Appellee Melissa Warner has custody of the parties' daughter, S.W., who turned 18 years old in February 2017. On August 21, 2017, Melissa filed a motion to modify child support and to compel disclosure of income information. S.W. had been diagnosed with neurocardiogenic syncope, and Melissa sought to continue appellant Russell Warner's support obligation past S.W.'s 19th birthday. After a hearing, the circuit court found that child support should continue and entered an order extending child support past the age of majority. On appeal, Russell argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court's determination that the parties' adult child suffered from a disability at the time of her majority when it extended his obligation to continue to pay child support. We disagree and affirm.

         Our standard of review for an appeal from a child-support order is de novo on the record, and we will not reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 205 S.W.3d 767 (2005). 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 reviewing a circuit court's findings, we give due deference to that court's superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony. Ward, supra.

         The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly ordered that support continue beyond the age of majority. The custodial parent seeking continued support bears the burden of proving that support should continue. Harris v. Harris, 82 Ark.App. 321, 107 S.W.3d 897 (2003).

         Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-14-237 provides that:

(a)(1) Unless a court order for child support specifically extends child support after these circumstances, an obligor's duty to pay child support for a child shall automatically terminate by operation of law:
(A) When the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age, unless the child is still attending high school;
(B) If the child is still attending high school, upon the child's high school graduation or the end of the school year after the child reaches nineteen (19) years of age, whichever is earlier.

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-237 (a)(1)(A), (B) (Repl. 2015).

         A parent ordinarily has no legal obligation to support a child beyond age eighteen. However, a parent may have a duty to provide continuing support to a child who is disabled upon reaching her majority. See Elkins v. Elkins, 262 Ark. 63, 553 S.W.2d 34 (1977); Petty v. Petty, 252 Ark. 1032, 482 S.W.2d 119 (1972). Our supreme court recognized in Petty that the onus of supporting the disabled child should not be borne solely by one parent.

         As our court stated in Guthrie v. Guthrie, 2015 ...


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.