In this divorce case the attorney for the wife withdrew from representing her 13 days before the final hearing. On appeal, it was found that this was improper and the case was reversed and remanded.

This case provides a good discussion of the procedure that is to be followed when an attorney withdraws from a case. Also, the client’s rights in such a situation.

Here’s the link…
Duncan v. Duncan

Parents agreed to hold child back in kindergarten. Child turns 18 during her junior year in high school. At the end of the child’s junior year, payor parent stops paying child support, holding the position that the child “should have” graduated that year. Under the Arkansas statute in effect at the time, a payor is liable for child support until the child turns 18 “or should have graduated from high school, whichever occurs later.”

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision that child support in this case should be paid until the child graduates. The reason being that the parties had agreed to hold the child back in kindergarten, so the child was going to graduate at the time that she should.

Had there been no such agreement then it appears the payor father may have had the winning argument.

Here’s the link…
Barker v. Barker Avery

Practice note: Here’s how A.C.A. 9-14-237(a)(1) now reads:

A.C.A. 9-14-237
(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)(i) When the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age unless the child is still attending high school.

(ii) 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;

(B) When the child:

(i) Is emancipated by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(ii) Marries; or

(iii) Dies;

(C) Upon the marriage of the parents of the child to each other; or

(D) Upon the entry of a final decree of adoption or an interlocutory decree of adoption that has become final under § 9-9-201 et seq. and thereby relieves the obligor of all parental rights and responsibilities.

We had previously posted that the Court of Appeals decided that a trial court had authority to place child support arrearage money into an account for a minor child. Well, today the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals. So it appears that a trial court does not have the authority to order child support arrearage funds to be placed into a separate account for the child, as opposed to paying the funds directly to the custodial parent.

Here’s the link…
Gilbow v. Travis

If you tweet, then follow me on twitter. Seriously, this is how we talk now?!?!

Here’s my page…
Kevin Hickey twitter page

Court of Appeals holds that a trial court may make decisions as to whether property is marital and/or whether it is actually owned by a person/entity not a party to the divorce. However, the trial court does not have the authority to rule that the parties must transfer by warranty deed a piece of property to a non-party. Non-parties need to intervene in the case if they believe they own the property.

Here’s the link…
Wise v. Wise