{
  "id": 1627436,
  "name": "Betty WILLIAMS v. Clifford WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1973-01-22",
  "docket_number": "5-6132",
  "first_page": "842",
  "last_page": "844",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 842"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "489 S.W.2d 774"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "241 Ark. 551",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1723924
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/241/0551-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 Ark. 440",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1724112
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/241/0440-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 Ark. 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1652874
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/222/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 Ark. 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720554
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/249/0413-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3261,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.83,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7671211667712356e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7108534126893112
    },
    "sha256": "4ead247d056b02a211726b865042162ea910e8dd278547e6c416a24e67c1c5f5",
    "simhash": "1:6eaf9554fac6ed39",
    "word_count": 538
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Betty WILLIAMS v. Clifford WILLIAMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThis appeal results from the chancellor\u2019s order in favor of appellee upon his petition for a change in custody of his minor child and a reduction in his child support payments. In the original action the appellant sought and was awarded, by a consent decree, the custody of the parties\u2019 two minor children. A written property settlement agreement was incorporated into the decree. In pertinent part it reads:\n\u201cDefendant agrees to pay $225.00 per month to the Plaintiff for child support, however, it is further agreed by the parties hereto, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, that the $225.00 a month house payment shall be made by Defendant in lieu of the child support herein and Defendant agrees to provide and maintain said residence **** rent free to Plaintiff for a period of six years.\u201d\nApproximately two months after the divorce decree was entered, appellee petitioned the court for custody of the parties\u2019 15 year old son. The chancellor granted custody of the son to his father, the appellee, and reduced appellee\u2019s child support payments in half by ordering appellant to pay appellee $112.50 per month for as long as she remained in the home, the title to which is in appellee by virtue of the settlement of their various property rights. The order further provided that in the event appellant should vacate the home, appellee should commence paying $112.50 per month to appellant for the maintenance and support of their 12 year old daughter who remained in custody of the appellant mother.\nFor reversal, appellant contends: \u201cThe Chancellor erred when he changed the property settlement agreement.\u201d In support of this contention, appellant relies only upon Anding (Anders) v. Anders, 249 Ark. 413, 459 S.W. 2d 416 (1970), where we affirmed the chancellor\u2019s refusal to modify a property settlement agreement which was \u201cwithout provision for its amendment or change.\u201d However, in the case at bar, the agreement specifically provides for alteration in the use of the words \u201cunless otherwise ordered by the Court.\u201d Moreover, we do not construe the \u201crent free\u201d provision to be independent of and unrelated to the agreed sum of child support. The monthly house payment agreed upon was to be made by appellee \u201cin lieu of the child support.\u201d\nFurthermore, \u201c*#*#[T]he power of a court to modify a decree for the support of minor children cannot be defeated by an agreement between the parents even when the agreement is incorporated in the decree.\u201d Lively v. Lively, 222 Ark. 501, 261 S.W. 2d 409 (1953). Also, see Clifford v. Danner, 241 Ark. 440, 409 S.W. 2d 314 (1966). The court has \u201cthe right to review and modify in accordance with changing circumstances awards for support of children, increasing or reducing same as warranted.\u201d Johnston v. Johnston, 241 Ark. 551, 408 S.W. 2d 885 (1966). In the instant case, certainly the change in custody constitutes a change in circumstances.\nIt follows that we are of the view that the chancellor correctly held the decree was subject to modification.\nAttorney\u2019s fees and costs denied.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henson & Faubus, for appellant.",
      "W. J. Walker, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Betty WILLIAMS v. Clifford WILLIAMS\n5-6132\n489 S.W. 2d 774\nOpinion delivered January 22, 1973\n[Rehearing denied February 26, 1973.]\nHenson & Faubus, for appellant.\nW. J. Walker, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0842-01",
  "first_page_order": 888,
  "last_page_order": 890
}