Hall v. Hall

Citations: 2013 Ark. 330; 429 S.W.3d 219; 2013 WL 5278522; 2013 Ark. LEXIS 396Docket: CV-12-89

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 19, 2013; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tammye Hall appealed a circuit court decision denying her motion to increase child support from Justin Hall. The original consent divorce decree, established on March 1, 2010, mandated Justin to pay $1,485 monthly based on his net salary from Falcon Jet and half of their children's private school tuition, not less than $715 monthly, without considering his income from Hall Engineering. Tammye's motion, filed on May 24, 2011, claimed a significant increase in Justin's income or that the original support amount was based on fraudulent financial disclosures. She also cited increased needs for their child diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.

Justin contested Tammye's claims, asserting her exaggeration of the child's needs and denying any income increase. The circuit court, after several hearings, ruled on October 18, 2011, highlighting Justin's admission of hiding marital assets and misrepresenting his finances. The court found Justin's actions to be egregious and calculated, aimed at evading equitable division of marital assets. It identified multiple accounts used to conceal funds, awarding Tammye a total of $125,206.50 plus attorney's fees and costs. However, the court denied Tammye’s request for increased child support, noting that while Justin concealed substantial income, Tammye had been aware at the time of the divorce of the challenges in assessing his Hall Engineering income. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court's order.

The circuit court was unable to classify the concealed funds from Justin as regular income or one-time payments, noting their derivation from at least 2009 and 2010. Although Tammye's motion was denied, the court allowed her to pursue her claim later with the proper motion. Following Tammye's request for clarification, the court amended her judgment to $124,698.50. Tammye appealed both orders, arguing that the court erred in denying her motion to increase child support, asserting that all income sources should be considered in determining support obligations. She claimed a material change in Justin's income justified a modification of child support, which the circuit court failed to recognize as error. In response, Justin contended that no material change warranted an increase since hidden assets did not equate to ongoing income. The standard of review for child-support orders is de novo on the record, with factual findings reviewed for clear error and legal conclusions receiving no deference. The law requires proof of a change in circumstances for support modifications, and the burden lies with the requesting party. Factors for consideration include remarriage, income changes, and financial conditions. The court's statement regarding the classification of concealed funds as regular or one-time was deemed a misinterpretation of the law, as the distinction between income types had not been established. Income is defined broadly to include all forms of payments due to an individual.

The definition of "income" is intentionally broad, aimed at encompassing various sources to benefit the child, as established in Ford v. Ford. The court has recognized multiple forms of income, including nonperiodic monetary judgments, gifts, retirement payments, and gambling winnings, for child support calculations. Despite acknowledging an error in the circuit court’s legal interpretation, the appellate court affirmed the denial of Tammye's motion for increased child support based on additional reasons provided by the circuit court, which Tammye did not contest on appeal. 

The circuit court found that Tammye was aware of the complexities in determining Justin's income from Hall Engineering at the time of their property-settlement agreement and noted that the funds in question were from 2009 and 2010. Tammye, however, argued that the entirety of the court's ruling was flawed and called for a reversal and remand for reconsideration of evidence under the correct legal understanding.

Tammye had previously filed multiple contempt motions to enforce the decree and discovered Justin's efforts to conceal assets and income from Hall Engineering. The court detailed Justin's fraudulent activities, including undisclosed bank accounts and manipulation of accounts to hide funds. In her request for increased child support, Tammye alleged a significant increase in Justin's income and claimed that the support amount was based on fraudulent financial representations. She testified that Justin had misrepresented his income, providing a false gross income figure of $30,000 for 2008, while actual records indicated a gross income of $137,000 for that year and $122,000 for 2009 after expenses.

Tammye testified that she identified gross income for Hall Engineering of $283,000 in 2010, deducting Justin's claimed expenses of $52,031, resulting in a net income of $230,969. She calculated child support based on these figures, averaging the net income for 2009 and 2010, which led to a proposed monthly child support amount of $3,021.50. The circuit court denied Tammye's request for an increase, noting that while Justin's income was substantial and he concealed at least $125,000, Tammye was aware of the challenges in determining Hall Engineering's income when the original decree was established in 2010. The court expressed uncertainty about whether the concealed funds were regular income or one-time payments.

Tammye's appeal argued that the circuit court erred in considering the nature of the funds relevant to child support calculations, a point the majority of the court found valid but still affirmed the circuit court’s decision based on two other findings: Tammye's prior knowledge of income determination difficulties and the origins of the funds from 2009 and 2010. Tammye contended that her agreement to overlook Justin’s income from Hall Engineering should not restrict the court's authority to modify child support, emphasizing that her evidence demonstrated Justin's income had doubled from 2009 to 2010. 

The appellate court acknowledged the extensive record and the significant effort to expose Justin's income discrepancies. It concluded that Tammye met her burden to show the circuit court's error and called for a reversal and remand for further consideration of Justin's income and any material changes in circumstances that might warrant a modification of child support. Justices Corbin and Baker concurred with this decision.