{ "id": 236161, "name": "STATE of Arkansas, Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Terrance D. ROSS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ross", "decision_date": "1997-06-09", "docket_number": "97-205", "first_page": "1", "last_page": "4", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "329 Ark. 1" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "945 S.W.2d 374" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "326 Ark. 544", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 12023341 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "546", "parenthetical": "\"A nonjurisdictional argument cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.\"" }, { "page": "337", "parenthetical": "\"A nonjurisdictional argument cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/326/0544-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 Ark. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1914639 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/313/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 Ark. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1914591 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/313/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "320 Ark. 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1451154 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" }, { "page": "566" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/320/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-239", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(1)(A)(i)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 340, "char_count": 4942, "ocr_confidence": 0.725, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.009120608962144125 }, "sha256": "e0010c7435fba361337c959aed9da801a7b02dc4c60dd0196744a28ba81cba3e", "simhash": "1:856ec4f1160fc0c0", "word_count": 792 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:12.305718+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE of Arkansas, Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Terrance D. ROSS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nIn October 1992, the appellee, Terrance Ross, was ordered to pay $100 per month in child support for his two minor children. Thereafter, Mr. Ross became consistently delinquent in satisfying the obligation. Consequently, in proceedings occurring from 1994 through 1996, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (\u201cOCSE\u201d), the appellant, obtained judgments on the accrued arrearages, and Mr. Ross was repeatedly held in contempt. Ultimately, Mr. Ross\u2019s driver\u2019s license was suspended, in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-239 (Supp. 1995), as the result of his child-support delinquency.\nIn the most recent hearing with respect to the child-support obligation, the Chancellor ordered the child-support obligation suspended pending reinstatement of Mr. Ross\u2019s driver\u2019s license. OCSE appeals from that order. We affirm because the arguments made in favor of reversal were not made to the Chancellor.\nDuring the hearing, Mr. Ross testified that he had lost his job on account of the suspension of his driver\u2019s license. He indicated that he recently had found a different job but that he was only working 20 hours per week. At the conclusion of the hearing, the following colloquy occurred between the Chancellor and counsel for the OCSE:\n[CHANCELLOR]: . . . The court finds that Mr. Ross is not willfully delinquent in support. That as a result of the suspension of his driver\u2019s license his job was lost and the child support is hereby suspended until his driver\u2019s license is restored.\n[COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I believe the driver\u2019s license was suspended because of the child support if I\u2019m not mistaken.\n[CHANCELLOR]: That\u2019s right.\n[COUNSEL]: Okay. Is \u2014 is he under some affirmative duty to\u2014\n[CHANCELLOR]: Sir?\n[COUNSEL]: Will he be under some affirmative duty to get [the] license back?\n[CHANCELLOR]: Maybe the Child Support Division can get [it] back for him.\n[COUNSEL]: Okay. I believe he\u2019s working 20 hours a week, but we\u2019re still\u2014\n[CHANCELLOR]: Well, that\u2019s not enough to sustain him \u2014 himself.\n[COUNSEL]: I\u2019ll get an order prepared to that effect, Your Honor.\n[CHANCELLOR]: All right. Thank you, sir.....\nAccording to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-14-239(b)(1)(A)(i) (Supp. 1995), OCSE must notify the Department of Finance and Administration (\u201cDF&A\u201d) to suspend the driver\u2019s license of a noncustodial parent if OCSE determines (1) that the parent \u201cis delinquent on a court-ordered child support payment or an adjudicated arrearage in an amount equal to six (6) months\u2019 obligation or more\u201d; and (2) that the parent has failed to \u201cexecute[] an installment agreement or make[ ] other necessary and proper arrangements\u201d for the payment of child support. The DF&A must \u201cimmediately suspend the license ... of the noncustodial parent\u201d upon receipt of such notification, \u00a7 9-14-239(d)(l), and the suspension must remain in effect until the OCSE notifies the DF&A to release the suspension. \u00a7 9-14-239(d)(2). See Survey of Legislation, 1995 Arkansas General Assembly, 18 U.A.L.R. L.J. 279, 349 (1996).\nOCSE argues that the Chancellor\u2019s ruling suspending Mr. Ross\u2019s child-support obligation constitutes an. erroneous decision \u201cnot to enforce the statute\u201d imposing the license-suspension penalty. According to OCSE, the Chancellor\u2019s ruling should be reversed because it fails \u201cto recognize and enforce [OCSE\u2019s] statutory authority to suspend [Mr. Ross\u2019s] driver\u2019s license\u201d and because it \u201ccoercfes] the state [not to] avail itself of its lawful right granted by A.C.A. 9-14-239 to suspend driving privileges of an individual who refuses to support [his] child in defiance of court orders.\u201d\nWe decline to address the merits of these arguments because, as the colloquy quoted above reveals, counsel for the OCSE did not raise them before the Chancellor. As we said in Arkansas Office of Child Support Enforcement v. House, 320 Ark. 423, 424, 897 S.W.2d 565, 566 (1995):\n[t]he rule is well-established that this court will not reverse on an issue not presented to the trial court. Hubbard v. Shores Group, Inc., 313 Ark. 498, 855 S.W.2d 924 (1993). We have also said that we will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or where a ruling from the trial court has not been obtained. Mobley v. Harmon, 313 Ark. 361, 854 S.W.2d 348 (1993).\nHere, counsel for the OCSE made no argument in the trial court opposing the Chancellor\u2019s decision to excuse Mr. Ross from paying child support while he is without a driver\u2019s license. The Chancellor was not given the opportunity to consider these arguments. Thus, we affirm the Chancellor\u2019s decision. See Betts v. Betts, 326 Ark. 544, 546, 932 S.W.2d 336, 337 (1996) (\u201cA nonjurisdictional argument cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.\u201d).\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "David Newbern, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Gordon, Caruth & Virden, by: Bart Virden, for appellant.", "No response." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas, Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Terrance D. ROSS\n97-205\n945 S.W.2d 374\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 9, 1997\nGordon, Caruth & Virden, by: Bart Virden, for appellant.\nNo response." }, "file_name": "0001-01", "first_page_order": 25, "last_page_order": 28 }