In re Marriage of Midence, 2006 MT 294, 334 M 388, 147 P.3d 227 (2006), is a case about modification of child support.
In this case, husband and wife filed for divorce. Wife had been a stay-at-home mother, and husband was an oncologist. When they divorced, they agreed the wife would primarily care for the children, and the husband would pay child support. The husband was leaving his current employment at the time of the divorce and looking for a new job.
At his current practice, husband was earning $266,252 each year. Based on this, he was required to pay $2,994.00 per month in child support under the Montana Child Support Guidelines. Since he was in the middle of looking for new employment, the parties agreed to $2,500 per month for temporary child support, and agreed that this amount would be revised when husband found new employment.
When husband found a new job, wife petitioned the court to modify child support. In 2004, the District Court held a hearing regarding the recalculation of the child support. Wife requested the amount be increased to $3,723.00, pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines and the father's new income at his new job. Wife also requested the new amount be applied retroactively back to when the husband had began this new employment.
The District Court determined that $2,990.00, which was offered by the husband, was a reasonable amount and that even the original award of $2,500.00 was enough to meet the needs of the minor children. The District Court noted that the wife had not provided any evidence as to what type of lifestyle the children had enjoyed before the divorce, and that $2,990 per month would be between $578 and $1,155 more than the children's monthly needs as documented by the wife. The Court determined that this would essentially be a tax-free maintenance award for the wife. The District Court also refused to apply the new amount retroactively.
The wife appealed to the Supreme Court.
Before modifying child support, Montana requires a finding of substantial and continuing changed circumstances that make the terms of the original support award unconscionable.
Admin. R.M. 37.62.102(1) states that the "guidelines create a presumption of the adequacy and reasonableness of child support awards. However, every case must be determined on its own merits and circumstances and the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that a child's needs are or are not being met."
The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the District Court had found that if the Guidelines were applied, it would be unjust to the husband. The District Court had further found that even though the husband's higher salary was substantial and continuing, this fact did not support a change in circumstances so substantial as to make the original decree unconscionable.
The Supreme Court upheld the District Court's decision, finding that without specific evidence of changed economic circumstances or actual increased need, a change in a party's income is not enough to modify child support or support a substantial change in circumstances.
Since the children's needs were being met, and it would have been unfair to the husband to modify the child support significantly when the children were not in need of more money, the revised amount from the District Court was affirmed for $2,990.00. The Supreme Court also upheld the District Court's decision not to apply it retroactively.
Main lesson I get from this case: One must show actual increased need or changed circumstances, not just increased income, in order to modify child support.
Read this case here: In re Marriage of Midence
No comments:
Post a Comment