Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Nehring v. Taylor
Citations: 266 Ark. 253; 583 S.W.2d 56; 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1460Docket: 79-42
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; July 2, 1979; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Darrell Hickman, Justice, addresses an appeal from the Sebastian County Chancery Court regarding the registration and enforcement of a Texas divorce decree. Nancy Nehring (formerly Taylor) was granted a divorce from Aubrey Taylor in 1974, which included a 43% interest in Aubrey's U.S. Air Force retirement benefits, deemed community property under Texas law. Nehring petitioned the Texas court for contempt against Taylor for failing to comply with the decree, leading to a 90-day jail sentence for him, contingent upon signing an allotment letter and paying arrears. After Taylor moved to Arkansas, Nehring filed the Texas decree and contempt order with the Sebastian County Chancery Court for registration as foreign judgments. The court served Taylor and, upon hearing, registered the decree but withheld execution pending further proceedings. Nehring then sought to hold Taylor in contempt for not complying with the Texas order. The chancellor found Taylor in arrears of $1,792.01, sentenced him to 30 days in jail (which could be purged upon payment), and dismissed further relief requests, returning the matter to Texas. Nehring contested the chancellor's decision not to adopt the Texas contempt order, specifically the 90-day sentence and allotment signing requirement. The chancellor accepted the Texas decree for registration and acknowledged the arrearage but declined to enforce the Texas contempt order due to jurisdictional principles established in Arkansas law, which state that contempt is a matter for the court where the contempt occurred. The court affirmed the correctness of the chancellor's actions in registering the Texas decree and enforcing it through contempt proceedings but upheld the refusal to adopt the Texas order in its entirety. The chancellor was not obligated to enforce the contempt order from Texas but had the discretion to issue a similar order for disobedience of her own ruling. The trial court's dismissal of the case was incorrect. While some jurisdictions may oppose the registration of a foreign decree for future payments like alimony or child support, this document supports the registration of such decrees to facilitate enforcement, especially when a party moves out of the original jurisdiction. Requiring a return to the original state for enforcement would create practical difficulties in collecting payments as they accrue. Once a foreign decree is registered, it is treated as an Arkansas judgment and remains enforceable in Arkansas. Consequently, the case is remanded with instructions for the chancellor to reinstate the Texas divorce decree as an Arkansas decree, while the rest of the judgment is affirmed.