{
  "id": 6140773,
  "name": "Oralyn Hamilton JAMES v. Mark Evan JAMES",
  "name_abbreviation": "James v. James",
  "decision_date": "1989-11-29",
  "docket_number": "CA 89-184",
  "first_page": "226",
  "last_page": "228",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ark. App. 226"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "780 S.W.2d 346"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "17 Ark. App. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6655260
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/17/0219-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877714
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0378-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 4709,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.902,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1352032558440076e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5771400185879563
    },
    "sha256": "7fac09e6fab7728ebae6f901cb9a8ce18a9faadbf7388571cbccf657b8d5fe63",
    "simhash": "1:af63832f46211b00",
    "word_count": 740
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:46.162740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cooper and Rogers, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Oralyn Hamilton JAMES v. Mark Evan JAMES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Chief Judge.\nAppellant, Oralyn Hamilton James, appeals a decision of the Union County Chancery Court refusing to grant her petition for a change of custody of her two minor children from appellee, Mark Evan James, to appellant. We find error and reverse and remand.\nCustody of the minor children, Elizabeth and Christopher, was awarded to appellee upon entry of a decree of divorce on August 21, 1985, subject to appellant\u2019s right to visitation. Appellant field her petition for change of custody of July 11, 1988, and the matter was heard by the chancellor on September 23, 1988. On October 3, 1988, an order was entered denying appellant\u2019s request for a change of custody after the court concluded that there had been no material change in circumstances making it in the best interest of the children to do so. It is from this denial that this appeal arises.\nFor reversal, appellant raises the following points: 1) The trial court erred in holding inadmissible evidence that appellee was guilty of fraudulent embezzlement of funds while acting as personal representative of his father\u2019s estate; 2) the trial court erred in denying her petition for change of custody; and 3) the trial court erred in denying her motion for relief from order. Appellee cross-appeals from the court\u2019s denial of his counterclaim for child support.\nBecause we find that appellant\u2019s first point contains merit and warrants reversal and remand for a new trial, we will not address appellant\u2019s remaining points for reversal or appellee\u2019s argument on cross-appeal.\nIn her first point, appellant contends the court erred by sustaining appellee\u2019s objection to introduction of relevant and material evidence that appellee fraudulently embezzled funds from his deceased father\u2019s estate while acting in the fiduciary capacity of personal representative. We agree.\nAppellant\u2019s proffer of the excluded evidence reveals testimony of appellee\u2019s mother and the family property settlement agreement evidencing appellee\u2019s admitted guilt of fraudulently depleting funds from his father\u2019s estate thereby depriving his mother and sister of their inheritance. Appellee\u2019s mother testified that she became suspicious of appellee\u2019s actions with regard to her husband\u2019s estate and hired a lawyer to audit the accounts managed by her son, appellee. Appellee became angered by his mother\u2019s actions and refused to allow the children to continue their relationship with her. Fraud was established and an agreement to wind up the estate was entered with appellee\u2019s mother replacing him as personal representative of the estate. The agreement revealed that during his administration, appellee practiced fraud, misappropriation, and misuse of estate funds by executing for his personal use four promissory notes to the estate totaling $215,323.53. Appellee did not have any of the misappropriated funds at the time the estate was settled and therefore agreed to deed his office building and his interest in family-owned real property to his mother and sister. Additionally, appellee agreed to sign a $64,000.00 promissory note to his sister evidencing his indebtedness to her for her proportionate share of their father\u2019s estate. He agreed not to discharge or modify any of this obligation in bankruptcy proceedings; however, he eventually did so in violation of the agreement.\nThe court sustained appellee\u2019s objection to the above evidence on the grounds of relevancy. Arkansas Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The appellate court does not reverse a chancellor\u2019s ruling on relevancy unless we find an abuse of the trial court\u2019s discretion. Canady v. Canady, 285 Ark. 378, 687 S.W. 2d 833(1985).Here, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by disallowing the introduction of evidence relating to appellee\u2019s fraudulent dealings with his father\u2019s estate since it was relevant to the ultimate issue of change of parental custody. Here, the proffered evidence reflects adversely on appellee\u2019s moral character. The morality of a parent is relevant to the best interest of the children and to the issue of parental custody. See Nix v. Nix, 17 Ark. App. 219, 706 S.W.2d 403 (1986).\nReversed and remanded.\nCooper and Rogers, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shackleford, Shackleford & Phillips, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Compton, Prewett, Thomas & Hickey, P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Oralyn Hamilton JAMES v. Mark Evan JAMES\nCA 89-184\n780 S.W.2d 346\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered November 29, 1989\n[Rehearing denied January 10, 1990.]\nShackleford, Shackleford & Phillips, P.A., for appellant.\nCompton, Prewett, Thomas & Hickey, P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0226-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 254
}