{
  "id": 1734160,
  "name": "Peters v. Peters",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peters v. Peters",
  "decision_date": "1964-09-14",
  "docket_number": "5-3244",
  "first_page": "361",
  "last_page": "363",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "238 Ark. 361"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "381 S.W.2d 748"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "17 S. W. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 Ark. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725361
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/179/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 4017,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.4342505282847e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5167689313160728
    },
    "sha256": "6e5dd109f53a0a21baf1810c65d0f8c1d2b4a06b4c80a06f6293fe8b507ff23e",
    "simhash": "1:43aee1c0e23dcf6a",
    "word_count": 652
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:57.788571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice McFaddin would affirm the decree in its entirety.",
      "Justice Robinson not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Peters v. Peters."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jim Johnson, Associate justice.\nThis is an appeal from a denial of a petition for reduction of alimony payments.\n-A divorce decree was entered May 1, 1962, by the Pulaski Chancery Court in which appellant Clyde Peters was ordered to pay appellee Mildred Peters the sum of $50.00 per week as permanent alimony (out of which she was to support their daughter), together with all past and future medical and hospital bills of appellee and their minor child as well as all obligations outstanding\" as of February 12, 1961. Thereafter on August 20, 1963, appellant filed a motion requesting a modification of the decree, alleging changed conditions. Appellee countered with a motion alleging appellant had refused to make support payments and pay doctor bills in accordance with the' order of the court, praying that appellant\u2019s motion be dismissed, for attorney\u2019s fee and that the payments be increased $10.00 per week until all arrearages are paid.\nAt the conclusion of a lengthy hearing on these motions, the trial court held that appellant\u2019s request for modification, should be denied and his motion dismissed, and that the motion of appellee should be sustained. Judgment in the sum of $1,100.00 for arrearages was entered October 2, 1963. From such order and judgment comes this appeal.\nAt the time of the divorce decree in 1962, appellant was working about 70 hours a week and earning some $250.00 per week. Even so, the family indebtedness which appellant was required by the divorce decree to pay was considerable. Soon after the divorce appellant entered into a financial arrangement with a credit union, depositing his full check, receiving enough personally for a simple existence, the credit union paying out the balance to appellee and various of their creditors. For some time appellant appeared to make a diligent effort under the circumstances to comply with the orders of the court. Then appellant became ill, and during April, May, June and July, 1963, had no earning capacity at all. The illness resulted in his earning capacity being cut approximately in half, at least temporarily. At the time of the hearing on the motions, appellant was unemployed and had been for several weeks, following garnishment proceedings brought by a creditor on a medical debt incurred by his teen-age daughter unbeknownst to appellant.\nThe record does not reflect that appellee\u2019s needs have diminished since the divorce, however it was shown that applleo is gainfully employed, albeit at a meager salary.\nThe state of the record being thus, wo cannot escape the conclusion that the trial court erred in failing to find that such changed conditions exist as to warrant a modification of the divorce decree.\n\u2018 \u2018 The chancery court has the unquestioned power . . \u2022. to alter the allowance of alimony at any allowed being governed by the circumstances of the particular case.\u201d Boniface v. Boniface, 179 Ark. 738, 17 S. W. 2d 897. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1213 (Repl. 1962).\nAfter a carefu.1 review of the record on trial de novo we conclude that the circumstances of this particular case warrant a reduction in the amount of alimony to $25.00 per weelc during such time as appellant\u2019s illness continues to necessitate limited employment. Upon a showing that appellant is able to resume full employment, the Chancellor is directed to order resumption of full compliance with the orders contained in the divorce decree together with $10.00 per month to be applied to the accumulated arrearages.\nThe motion of appellee\u2019s attorney for the release of $100.00 previously deposited with this- court for the payment of brief cost and attorney\u2019s fee is granted. An additional attorney\u2019s fee in the amount of $100.00 for services .on this appeal is awarded appellee\u2019s attorney.\nModified and affirmed.\nJustice McFaddin would affirm the decree in its entirety.\nJustice Robinson not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jim Johnson, Associate justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth Goffelt, for appellant. '",
      "Judith Rogers, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peters v. Peters.\n5-3244\n381 S. W. 2d 748\nOpinion delivered September 14, 1964.\nKenneth Goffelt, for appellant. '\nJudith Rogers, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0361-01",
  "first_page_order": 385,
  "last_page_order": 387
}