The opinion
John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge, dissenting. The appellant filed a petition seeking a reduction in his child-support payments. Appellee counterclaimed for an increase in child support and for contempt. The trial court entered an order denying both parties’ request for modification of child support, finding appellant in contempt, and ordering him to pay $985 in past-due child support. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in ruling on the basis of representations made in chambers, without taking any testimony or other evidence.
The following is the entire abstract of the proceedings:
The Court: I visited with the attorneys in the back and received some indication of what the anticipated testimony might be. And from that I reached a decision. Mr. Harper, would you announce it?
Mr. Harper: Mr. Dottley owes my client $800.00 in back child support. He owes $185.00 for school fees. The total is $985. This will be paid within ninety days of today’s date.
My client will be awarded attorney’s fees of $500.00 for defendant’s failure to follow previous orders of the Court. This will be paid within ninety days.
Plaintiffs petition for increase is denied. Defendant’s petition for decrease is denied. The tax deduction for the child will continue with my client.
When defendant has the child at least fourteen days, he is entitled to a reduction of one-half of his child support. Child support will continue to be $400 per month.
The parties in a property settlement agreement provided that they would each be responsible for one-half of private school tuition and expenses. It shall continue to be enforced. Both will continue to be responsible for one-half of tuition and fees for the private school the child is attending.
The Court: That is the ruling of the Court.
Mr. Haddock: Excuse me, Your Honor?
The Court: I said that’s the ruling of the Court.
Mr. Haddock: Just our objection, that the Court ruled without taking any evidence, any testimony, or looking at the evidence; that he ruled on all the representations of Ms. Dottley’s attorney and to that we object. This is the first time I’ve ever had a ruling without any evidence. We object and we’re going to appeal.
The Court: Well, you know, while you’re here you can
Mr. Haddock: The Court’s announced its ruling. If we’re going to have a hearing I’m going to ask the Court to recuse, because the Court’s already decided what he’s going to do without the first witness taking the stand.
The Court: That’s my ruling based upon the proposed facts as I appreciate them to be if this matter were presented to the Court.
The following statements were not abstracted but appear in the record immediately afterward:
Mr. Haddock: That’s good,Your Honor.
The Court: Very well. Thank you.
I agree that the trial judge erred in ruling before evidence was had. Nevertheless, I disagree with the conclusion that this error warrants reversal. When he made his objection, appellant’s attorney requested no relief, but instead declared immediately that he intended to appeal. When the court attempted to respond to address his objection, appellant’s attorney interrupted the trial judge in mid-sentence and refused the very relief he now seeks, a hearing on the merits.
An appellant must obtain a ruling on his objection to preserve it for appeal, Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board v. Pegasus Renovation Co., 347 Ark. 320 , 64 S.W.3d 241 (2001). The reason for this rule is to ensure that the trial court has an opportunity to correct its own error before resort is had to appeal. Here, the appellant’s attorney not only failed to obtain a clear ruling, but is himself directly responsible for preventing the trial judge from correcting his error by conducting a proper hearing. It is quite possible that the trial judge made a simple and honest mistake. Perhaps he believed that the parties had stipulated to the facts in chambers and that all that was required at this point was for him to issue a ruling. The majority does not consider this possibility, but instead apparently believes it more likely that an Arkansas trial judge might be so misguided as to intentionally issue a ruling without having heard either evidence or stipulation. I vehemently disagree. In my view, it would have been beneath the dignity of the court to continue to offer relief after he had been silenced by appellant’s attorney and after relief had been refused. I would affirm because appellant’s attorney prevented the court from ruling on the objection.
I respectfully dissent.