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

This father represented himself (pro se) in a custody case. He makes several arguments but the Court of Appeals rules against him on all of them.

Remember…get a lawyer!

Here’s the link…
Stacks v. Stacks

This case is about as protracted as it gets. Several hearings; multiple allegations; multiple drugs; multiple drug tests; and more.

Provides a good example of the types of evidence needed in these types of cases.

Here’s the link…
Poole v. Poole

It is common practice for a judge, at the conclusion of a hearing, to designate one of the attorneys to draft the order of the court. Sometimes the attorney drafts it immediately. Sometimes there is a delay due to a number of different reasons.

In this case, the court divided a retirement account held by the husband. It was divided equally between the parties. 4 years later the decree was finally entered. The retirement account increased significantly in value during that time. Husband wanted the division to be as of the date of the hearing, 4 years earlier, as opposed to the date the decree was entered. Wife objected.

The Court of Appeals held that the account is to be divided as of the date the decree is entered, as had been held in prior Arkansas cases. The husband failed to show he had suffered any injustice by the delay in getting the decree drafted.

I’m betting he would disagree.

Here’s the link…
Churchill v. Churchill

Yes, that’s correct. Noncustodial parent is disabled and receives SSDI. His children also receive SSDI payments due to his disability. These payments go directly from the Social Security Administration to the custodial parent for the benefit of the children. The Supreme Court of Arkansas has determined that these payments are to be considered income to the noncustodial parent for purposes of determining a net income for child support purposes.

Here’s the link…
Arkansas Child Support Enforcement v. Jason Hearst

Custodial parent wants to relocate with child to another state. Noncustodial parent files for a change of custody. Court of Appeals upholds trial court’s decision finding no change in circumstances.

Here’s the link…
Schmit v. Schmit

Happy Thanksgiving! God Bless you and your family.

Here are some fun Thanksgiving sites…

Thanksgiving activities for kids
click here

Thanksgiving on the Net…great site for everything Thanksgiving…from the Pilgrim story to how to cook a turkey.
click here

Thanksgiving recipes
click here

History of Thanksgiving on the History Channel site
click here

Wife signs over interest in real property due to her husband being the dominant party in the relationship and also because she owed a debt, needed money to pay the debt, and husband used that knowledge to his advantage. Is this enough for wife to save her interest in the property at the final divorce hearing? Court of Appeals says yes.

Here it is…
McCracken v. McCracken

It is generally assumed that a material change in circumstances will automatically result in a change of custody. But that is not the law. In Arkansas, the court will look to see if there has been a material change in circumstances. IF such a change has occurred THEN the court will determine what is in the best interest of the child - whether the child needs to stay with the current custodial parent or if a change to the noncustodial parent is warranted.

In a case affirmed today by the Court of Appeals, the trial court found a material change in circumstances but elected to leave the child with the custodial parent. The trial court gave stern warnings to the custodial parent about her behavior (she was saying things to the child that made the child wary of the noncustodial parent) but did not change custody. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court followed the law correctly.

Here’s the case…
Shively v. Shively Plautz

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission offers the following tips on costumes, treats and decorations to help your children trick-or-treat safely this year: