{
  "id": 1455982,
  "name": "Sammy Thomas BOREN v. Pamela M. BOREN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boren v. Boren",
  "decision_date": "1994-10-24",
  "docket_number": "93-1123",
  "first_page": "378",
  "last_page": "380",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "318 Ark. 378"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "885 S.W.2d 852"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-13-201",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "a"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-105",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-12-302",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 3340,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.903,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.37198567368176e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39039187226745653
    },
    "sha256": "3f08a74b5691ebd8d16e7b31548a1729b6020451580fb7d563af041d9ad7a667",
    "simhash": "1:9ff7a7cdddef79a3",
    "word_count": 536
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:16.788487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sammy Thomas BOREN v. Pamela M. BOREN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nThis case was certified to us by the Court of Appeals because it involves a question of significant public interest \u2014 whether a municipal or circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction with chancery court to enforce an agreement for child support. We hold that chancery has exclusive jurisdiction of all cases involving matters of child support.\nPamela Boren, appellee, and Sammy Boren, appellant, were divorced on December 9, 1977, by decree of the Chancery Court of Lonoke County. Pursuant to the decree, Mrs. Boren was awarded custody of the minor child and Mr. Boren was required to pay child support and medical insurance for the child.\nThe decree was modified in February 1992 by increasing the amount of child support payments and requiring the parties to share equally the cost of health care services not covered by insurance. A dispute subsequently arose as to the payment of child support, and of Mrs. Boren\u2019s reimbursement for Mr. Boren\u2019s share of medical expenses incurred but not covered by insurance.\nOn October 7, 1992, Mrs. Boren filed suit in small claims court of Carlisle Municipal Court, seeking judgment against Mr. Boren for child support delinquencies and medical reimbursements. Mr. Boren responded, denying liability and challenging the municipal court\u2019s jurisdiction of the matter, arguing that chancery court had exclusive jurisdiction of matters relating to child support.\nA trial was held and judgment was entered against Mr. Boren in the amount of $202.30. A post-trial motion to vacate the judgment was denied. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Lonoke County solely on the issue of the municipal court\u2019s jurisdiction. The circuit court found the municipal court had properly accepted jurisdiction of the matter. Mr. Boren appeals from that order, challenging the jurisdiction of the municipal court.\nAppellant argues that chancery has exclusive jurisdiction over questions of child support that arise after the final divorce decree because the court retains continuing jurisdiction of divorce and matters relating to it. He cites case law and Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-12-302 (1987) which provides that an \u201caction for alimony or divorce shall be by equitable proceedings.\u201d However, we believe the dispositive statute is Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-105(a) (1987):\nThe chancery courts in the several counties in this state shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all civil cases and matters relating to the support of a minor child or support owed to a person eighteen or older which accrued during that person\u2019s minority. [Our emphasis.]\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-13-201 (a) (1987) provides that circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction of all actions for the enforcement of civil rights or redress of civil wrongs, except when exclusive jurisdiction is given to other courts. Under \u00a7\u00a7 9-14-105(a) and 16-13-201(a), chancery has been given exclusive jurisdiction in \u201call civil cases and matters relating to the support of a minor child,\u201d [our emphasis] and we find the enforcement of a child support order is clearly a matter related to support of a minor child.\nReversed and dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Roberts Law Firm, by: Robert L. Thacker, for appellant.",
      "Joe Kelly, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sammy Thomas BOREN v. Pamela M. BOREN\n93-1123\n885 S.W.2d 852\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 24, 1994\nThe Roberts Law Firm, by: Robert L. Thacker, for appellant.\nJoe Kelly, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0378-01",
  "first_page_order": 404,
  "last_page_order": 406
}