Union Federal Credit Union v. Thornton

In this domestic relations matter, Anita L. Thornton (Wife) appeals the family court's final divorce decree, arguing the family court erred in (1) identifying, valuing, and apportioning marital assets and debts (2) miscalculating Wife's child support obligation (3) awarding primary custody of the parties' two children to Michael P. Thornton (Husband) (4) failing to find Wife prejudiced by a "structural" error related to a hearing on her petition to enforce visitation (5) relying too heavily on the guardian ad litem's (GAL) conclusions (6) relying on the forensic consultant, Dr. Marc Harari's conclusions, which were based on information provided by the GAL (7) granting Husband a divorce on the ground of adultery (8) failing to find a conflict of interest regarding a personal relationship between Husband and an employee of the Dorchester County Clerk of Court and (9) requiring the parties to pay their own attorney's fees, requiring Wife to pay a greater percentage of the GAL's fees and Dr. Harari's fees, and requiring Wife to pay the private investigator's fees. We affirm as modified.

<p>Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court in Chancery, Fort Smith District.</p> <p>Edgar E. Bryant, Judge.</p> <p>STATEMENT BY THE COURT.</p> <p>The appellee, Ada Thornton, a minor, was the owner of a lot in the city of Fort Smith, which was included in an improvement district of said city. An assessment for the benefit of the improvement was made upon said lot, in common with the other lots embraced in the district. The assessment upon said lot was not paid, and in 1890 a suit was brought by the board of said improvement district, in the circuit court for the Fort Smith district, to collect the amount of said assessment. The lot had been assessed by the county assessor as the property of George Thornton, and the board of improvement alleged in their complaint that he was the owner of the lot, and named him as the defendant. At the time this suit was commenced, George Thornton, who was the father of appellee, Ada Thornton, had been dead several years. The board of improvement not knowing this, a summons was issued for said George Thornton, and the sheriff returned that he was not to be found in his county. Afterwards a copy of said summons was affixed to the property, and published as required by the statute in cases where the defendant is not found. Upon such service a decree was rendered condemning the lot to be sold for the assessment, penalty and costs. At the sale under such decree, the appellant, Greenstreet, purchased. The sale was duly confirmed, and, after the expiration of the time for redemption, a deed in due form was executed, conveying said land to him.</p> <p>This suit was brought by Ada Thornton to set aside such decree and sale, so far as it effects her interest, and to cancel the deed to Greenstreet. The chancellor held that the decree was void, and rendered a decree that Ada Thornton should return to Greenstreet the amount of the assessment paid by him, interest, etc., less rent collected by him, and that the deed be canceled.</p> <p>1. There is no d