Supreme Court Of Arkansas Page 4
ADVERTISEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14Cite as 2009 Ark. 599
The instant appeal raises an issue of first impression: whether the term “income,” as
defined by this court’s Administrative Order No. 10, includes Social Security Disability
benefits paid directly to a noncustodial parent’s children as a result of that parent’s disability.
In an appeal from a child support order this court reviews the case de novo on the record and
will not reverse a finding of fact by the trial court unless it is clearly erroneous. McWhorter v.
McWhorter, 346 Ark. 475, 58 S.W.3d 840 (2001). However, a trial court’s conclusion of law
is given no deference on appeal. Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 205 S.W.3d 767 (2005). In
interpreting administrative orders, we have held that because these orders are, in essence, rules
promulgated by the court, they are to be interpreted using the same canons of construction
that are used to interpret statutes. Montgomery v. Bolton, 349 Ark. 460, 79 S.W.3d 354 (2002).
The first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads,
giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Id. When
the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of
statutory construction. Id.
Section II of Administrative Order No. 10 sets forth the following definition of
“income” for purposes of determining child support:
Income means any form of payment, periodic or otherwise, due to an
individual, regardless of source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses,
workers' compensation, disability, payments pursuant to a pension or retirement
program, and interest less proper deductions for:
1. Federal and state income tax;
-4-
09-135
ADVERTISEMENT
0 votes
Related Articles
Related forms
Related Categories
Parent category: Legal