# Schumacher v. Schumacher

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · March 17, 1999 · 66 Ark. App. 9

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771071

## Case

- **Full name:** David Donald SCHUMACHER v. Rebecca W. SCHUMACHER
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** March 17, 1999
- **Citations:** 66 Ark. App. 9; 986 S.W.2d 883; 1999 Ark. App. LEXIS 143
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rogers
- **Judges:** Sam Bird
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771071

## Opinion text

Judith Rogers, Judge, concurring. I concur in the excellent majority opinion that was written in this case. I write separately, not because I reject the final decision of the chancellor or the amount of child support and alimony set forth in the order, but because the chancellor should have referred to the family-support chart before beginning the analysis and determining any deviation. I also want to emphasize that the chancellor obviously tried to make an equitable decision, and I cannot fault him for the result that emerged. I agree that under the facts in the case at bar, the chancellor should have first set out specific findings on the record to support his deviation from the guidelines.
Here, the chancellor in the divorce action could have adopted the agreement of separate maintenance the parties had reached six months earlier. The agreement was entered of record a short time after appellant moved into another woman’s home and less than one month before he filed for divorce. If the chancellor had found that the doctrine of waiver or estoppel applied due to the previous agreement of the parties or that other equitable considerations under the statute warranted an unequal division, it should have been so stated for the record. Again, the chancellor should have referred to the family-support guidelines and articulated his reasons for deviating from the amounts set forth in the chart.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771071. Public record. Not legal advice.