ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION III

ROBERT C. TUCKER,

APPELLANT

V.

MICHELLE TUCKER IRWIN,

APPELLEE

CA02-1229

JUNE 18, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

HON. RICHARD E. GARDNER, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from a judgment finding appellant Robert Tucker in contempt and awarding child support arrearages to appellee Michelle Tucker (Irwin) in the amount of $13,700.00, in addition to attorney's fees and costs. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The salient facts are that appellee filed a petition in June 2001 seeking a contempt citation against Tucker for non-payment of child support, judgment for the arrearage, an increase in child support, and a bond to guarantee future payments. The parties' attorneys met with the case coordinator on August 31, 2001, and agreed on a hearing date of November 15. Tucker's attorney appeared at the hearing and admitted that, due to an error on his part, his client, who lives in New Jersey, was not present. He stated that he did not object to appellee proceeding with her evidence, but asked the court to leave the record open so he could submit evidence on Tucker's behalf later. The court, after noting that the case had been

set for hearing since August 31, found that Tucker's counsel had notice of the hearing and that there was no reason why Tucker could not be present, and ordered that the matter proceed.

After appellee rested, Tucker's counsel requested the court to allow him ten business days to submit checks showing that he had made additional child-support payments. The court, after again noting that the case had been set since August 31, stated that counsel had plenty of time to get ready for the hearing and denied Tucker's request. The court then announced his conclusion that Tucker was in contempt of court for non-payment of support and awarded judgment against him in the amount of $13,700, and an order to that effect was entered on November 30, 2001. By agreement of counsel, the issues of an increase in child support and posting of a security bond were continued until after the completion of discovery. Tucker filed a motion for reconsideration on November 28, 2001, and a notice of appeal on December 31, 2001. On February 14, 2002, Tucker filed a first amended motion to reconsider.

On June 4, 2002, Tucker appeared with his attorney and requested to put on evidence of child-support payments in rebuttal to the evidence that had been presented by appellee at the November 15 hearing. The court denied that request but allowed the evidence to be proffered, stating that he was not "going to make a decision about anything today." Appellee then put on evidence in rebuttal to the proffer, along with evidence in support of her claim for an increase in child support. On June 18, 2002, the court entered an order denying the increase in child support, denying the requirement of a security bond, and ordering Tuckerto pay $110 per month toward his children's medical insurance premiums. The court reserved a ruling on Tucker's motion to reconsider "pending the outcome of [appellant's] appeal, which covers the same subject matter as the Motions to Reconsider." On July 31, 2002, Tucker's appeal was dismissed on appellee's motion under ARCP 54(b) due to the lack of a final order. A final order was entered on August 15, 2002, by which the court found and ordered that "[appellant's] claim for credit on his child support obligation as presented on June 4, 2002, should be denied." At timely notice of appeal was filed.

Tucker's points of appeal are that: (1) the court erred in refusing to admit, consider, and give proper weight to the exhibits proffered by appellant's counsel at the June 4, 2002, hearing; (2) the court erred in denying appellant's motion made on November 15, 2001, to hold the record open for ten business days because equity cannot be done in this case without the court at least considering appellant's proffered exhibits of past payments and his testimony at the June 4, 2002, hearing; and (3) appellee was not prejudiced by the testimony and exhibits proffered at the June 4, 2002, hearing because the parties appeared for the court's consideration of other issues on that date. In sum, all three points contend that there is error, in one form or another, because the trial court did not consider the evidence that was eventually presented at the hearing June 4, 2002.

As to the first point, we cannot tell from the language of the August 15, 2002, order that the court refused to "admit, consider, and give proper weight" to appellant's evidence. The order merely recites that "[appellant's] claim for credit on his child support obligation as presented on June 4, 2002, is denied." Nowhere in the record does it appear that the courtrefused to consider the evidence presented by appellant at that hearing. Appellant filed no request for findings of fact or conclusions of law pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Although the trial court did not specifically state that it had considered the evidence as presented by Tucker in the June 4, 2002, proffer, we indulge in the presumption that the trial court acted properly and made the findings necessary to support its judgment. Tillery v. Evans, 67 Ark. App. 43, 991 S.W.2d 644 (1999).

Affirmed.

Hart and Roaf, JJ., agree.