{
  "id": 6142380,
  "name": "Paul James PASCHAL v. Alice PASCHAL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Paschal v. Paschal",
  "decision_date": "2003-06-11",
  "docket_number": "CA 02-995",
  "first_page": "455",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 Ark. App. 455"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "117 S.W.3d 650"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "331 Ark. 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-201",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(4)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. App. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6140113
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/52/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "821 S.W.2d 21",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1902447
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/307/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 Ark. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1902462
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/307/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-234",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. App. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139593
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-234 (Supp. 1995); Grable v. Grable, 307 Ark. 410, 821 S.W.2d 21 (1991); Heflin v. Bell, 52 Ark. App. 201, 916 S.W.2d 769 (1996)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-234 (Supp. 1995); Grable v. Grable, 307 Ark. 410, 821 S.W.2d 21 (1991); Heflin v. Bell, 52 Ark. App. 201, 916 S.W.2d 769 (1996)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/56/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 Ark. 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1240993
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/337/0583-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 S.W.3d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1257732,
        1257788
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0596-01",
        "/ark/341/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 Ark. 596",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1257732
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0596-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 Ark. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1111363
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/346/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683302
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing McWhorter v. McWhorter, 346 Ark. 475, 58 S.W.3d 840 (2001); Kelly v. Kelly, 341 Ark. 596, 19 S.W.3d 1 (2000); Smith v. Smith, 337 Ark. 583, 990 S.W.2d 550 (1999)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing McWhorter v. McWhorter, 346 Ark. 475, 58 S.W.3d 840 (2001); Kelly v. Kelly, 341 Ark. 596, 19 S.W.3d 1 (2000); Smith v. Smith, 337 Ark. 583, 990 S.W.2d 550 (1999)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 Ark. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1342447
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/342/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 996",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683278
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0996-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 Ark. 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1513727
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Nielsen v. Berger-Nielsen, 347 Ark. 996, 69 S.W.3d 414 (2002)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Nielsen v. Berger-Nielsen, 347 Ark. 996, 69 S.W.3d 414 (2002)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/349/0187-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 421,
    "char_count": 7299,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.767,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5686356106451373e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6782785405635618
    },
    "sha256": "c16001245bd3b5f5da316dd6b8527b4fd992e5ffe957571f68ed20c257396e13",
    "simhash": "1:8226ae644843d967",
    "word_count": 1185
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:45.234835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Stroud, C.J., Hart, Robbins, Griffen, and Crabtree, JJ-, agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Paul James PASCHAL v. Alice PASCHAL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Karen R. Baker, Judge.\nAppellant, Paul James Paschal, appeals a decision by the Washington County Circuit Court modifying the previous orders of the court regarding child support. Appellant has two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred in awarding appellee, Alice Paschal, retroactive child support. Second, appellant argues that the trial court erred in considering the bonus that he received in 2001 as income for the purpose of establishing his support obligation. We affirm.\nThe facts of this case are as follows. The parties were divorced by a decree entered in the Washington County Circuit Court on September 17, 1996. Custody of the parties\u2019 two minor children was given to Ms. Paschal. The divorce decree provided that Mr. Paschal\u2019s child support would be set at $965 per month and one-half of his net annual bonus from the period of September 1996 to August 1997; $965 per month and twenty-two percent of his annual bonus received from the period of August 1997 to July 1999; and commencing August 1, 1999, Mr. Paschal\u2019s support obligation was to be modified based upon his current take-home pay in accordance with the Family Support Chart.\nOn October 9, 2001, Ms. Paschal filed a petition for contempt alleging that Mr. Paschal had failed to pay the amount of support per the divorce decree. On May 21, 2002, Ms. Paschal amended her petition to add a request for modification of Mr. Paschal\u2019s support obligation due to an increase in his income. In an order entered on July 22, 2002, the trial judge granted Ms. Paschal\u2019s request to modify Mr. Paschal\u2019s support obligation and denied Ms. Paschal\u2019s motion for contempt, finding specifically that Mr. Paschal did not properly compute his support obligation due to his failure to include all of his income.\nWe review child-support awards de novo on the record. Davie v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 349 Ark. 187, 76 S.W.3d 873 (2002) (citing Nielsen v. Berger-Nielsen, 347 Ark. 996, 69 S.W.3d 414 (2002)). In de novo review cases, we will not reverse a finding of fact by the trial judge unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. (citing Norman v. Norman, 342 Ark. 493, 30 S.W.3d 83 (2000)). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. (citing Nielsen, supra). Further, we give due deference to the trial judge\u2019s superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony. Id.\nThe amount of child support lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the trial judge\u2019s 'finding will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485, 65 S.W.3d 432 (2002) (citing McWhorter v. McWhorter, 346 Ark. 475, 58 S.W.3d 840 (2001); Kelly v. Kelly, 341 Ark. 596, 19 S.W.3d 1 (2000); Smith v. Smith, 337 Ark. 583, 990 S.W.2d 550 (1999)). The trial judge is required to refer to the child-support chart, and the amount specified in the chart is presumed to be reasonable. Id. (citing Smith v. Smith, supra).\nMr. Paschal first argues that the trial court erred in awarding appellee, Alice Paschal, retroactive child support. However, the trial judge did not retroactively modify the child-support order. Rather, he clarified the original order by setting the sum certain amount of support. The trial judge correctly found the terms of the agreement were unambiguous in that the parties intended to set child support in accordance with the child-support chart, yet failed to set a sum certain amount of child support as required by Administrative Order No. 10.\nThe testimony showed that on August 1, 1999, Mr. Paschal began making child-support payments in the amount of $1080 per month. The trial judge found that based on his income the amount of child support that Mr. Paschal should have paid was $1469 during the period of August 1, 1999, through August 1, 2000; $1234.66 during the period of August 2, 2000, through December 31, 2000; and $2520 during the year 2001. We find no error in the trial judge\u2019s clarification of the original child-support order.\nAppellant\u2019s reliance upon the line of modification cases is misplaced. We agree that retroactive modification of a court-ordered child-support obligation may only be assessed from the time a petition for modification is filed. Yell v. Yell, 56 Ark. App. 176, 939 S.W.2d 860 (1997) (citing Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-234 (Supp. 1995); Grable v. Grable, 307 Ark. 410, 821 S.W.2d 21 (1991); Heflin v. Bell, 52 Ark. App. 201, 916 S.W.2d 769 (1996)). However, where a child-support order fails to recite the amount of support, the order has no sum certain that is capable of modification. Thus, the trial judge did not retroactively modify the support order; rather, he calculated the correct amount of support based on Mr. Paschal\u2019s income, and set a sum certain amount of support, bringing the child-support order into compliance with Administrative Order No. 10.\nThe trial judge also determined that Mr. Paschal\u2019s future monthly child-support payment should be $1,299 based on his current income. Mr. Paschal argues in his second point on appeal that the trial court erred in considering the bonus that he received in 2001 as income for the purpose of establishing his support obligation. He specifically asserts.that the bonus was a \u201cnon-predictable salary bonus.\u201d For the calculation of child support, \u201cincome\u201d is statutorily defined as:\n(4) (A) \u201cIncome\u201d means any periodic form of payment due to an individual, regardless of the source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, workers\u2019 compensation, disability, payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program, and interest.\n(B) The definition of \u201cincome\u201d may be expanded by the Arkansas Supreme Court from time to time in the Guidelines for Child Support Enforcement, \u00a7 9-99-901.\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-201(4) (Supp. 2001). In Administrative Order No. 10, the Arkansas Supreme Court expanded the definition of \u201cincome\u201d as follows: \u201cIncome means any form of payment, periodic or otherwise, due to an individual, regardless of source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, worker\u2019s compensation, disability, payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program, and interest. ...\u201d In re: Administrative Order Number 10: Arkansas Child Support Guidelines \u00a7 II, 331 Ark. 581 (1998) (emphasis added). The definition is intentionally broad to encompass the widest range of sources consistent with this State\u2019s policy to interpret \u201cincome\u201d broadly for the benefit of the child. Ford, supra. Hence, we find that the $100,000 bonus that Mr. Paschal received in 2001 clearly falls within the definition of income, and the trial court properly considered the 2001 bonus in determining Mr. Paschal\u2019s child-support obligation. Based on the foregoing, we affirm.\nStroud, C.J., Hart, Robbins, Griffen, and Crabtree, JJ-, agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Karen R. Baker, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Taylor Law Firm, Scott Smith and John Mikesch, for appellant.",
      "Sexton Law Firm, by: Jane Watson Sexton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paul James PASCHAL v. Alice PASCHAL\nCA 02-995\n117 S.W.3d 650\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Divisions II and III\nOpinion delivered June 11, 2003\n[Substituted Opinion on Denial of Rehearing delivered September 17, 2003]\nTaylor Law Firm, Scott Smith and John Mikesch, for appellant.\nSexton Law Firm, by: Jane Watson Sexton, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0455-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 479
}