Child Support, Custody, and Visitation_support_modification_reduction in income
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for child
support modification in a case in which the child support guidelines did not apply. The court
considered defendant's significant reduction in income and its impact upon his ability to support
his children and himself.
Metcalf & Beal, L.L.P., by Christopher L. Beal, for plaintiff.
C.R. “Skip” Long, Jr., for defendant.
WYNN, Judge.
Defendant Mark A. Trevillian contends the trial court
erroneously denied his motion for a reduction in child support and
considered improper criteria for modification of child support. We
disagree and affirm the order below.
Plaintiff Kay Schott Trevillian and Defendant are formerly
husband and wife with one child born during their marriage. By
order dated 25 April 2001, the trial court granted Plaintiff
primary custody of their child. Based upon Defendant's income, of
approximately $300,000 per year for 1999 and 2000, the trial court
ordered Defendant to pay $2,500 per month in child support.
Defendant's income increased to $360,000 in 2001, but Plaintiff did
not seek an increase in child support. However, following a
reduction in Defendant's income in 2002 to $227,400 gross with anet income of $151,400 after taxes, Defendant moved for a reduction
in child support. In denying Defendant's motion for a reduction in
child support, the trial court found that “even after paying family
related expenses and support obligations, the Defendant was left
with a net of over $5,000 per month for his own personal expenses.”
Therefore, the trial court concluded “Defendant's drop in income
did not constitute a substantial and material change in
circumstances.” Defendant appeals.
_______________________________________________________
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in
denying his motion for a reduction in child support because a 25%
involuntary reduction in income constitutes a substantial change in
circumstances warranting child support modification.
“The burden of demonstrating changed circumstances rests upon
the moving party. Once the threshold issue of substantial change
in circumstances has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence,
the trial court then proceeds to follow the [North Carolina Child
Support] Guidelines and to compute the appropriate amount of child
support. The Guidelines apply to modification of child support
orders as well as to initial orders. Thus modification of a child
support order involves a two-step process. The court must first
determine a substantial change of circumstances has taken place;
only then does it proceed to apply the Guidelines to calculate the
applicable amount of support.” McGee v. McGee, 118 N.C. App. 19,
26-27, 453 S.E.2d 531, 535-36 (1995).
In North Carolina,
[t]he Guidelines apply in cases in which the
parents' combined adjusted gross income isequal to or less than $15,000 per month
($180,000 per year). For cases with higher
combined adjusted gross income, child support
should be determined on a case-by-case basis,
provided that the amount of support awarded
may not be lower than the maximum basic child
support obligation shown in the Schedule of
Basic Child Support Obligations.
Child Support Guidelines, “Determination of Support in Cases
Involving High Combined Income,” Annotated Rules of North Carolina
(2002). To determine a party's monthly adjusted gross income, “the
amount of child support payments actually made by a party under any
pre-existing court order(s) or separation agreement(s) should be
deducted from the party's gross income.” See Child Support
Guidelines, “Pre-existing Child Support Obligations and
Responsibility for Other Children,” Annotated Rules of North
Carolina (2002).
At the time of the child support modification hearing,
Defendant's monthly gross income was $18,950.00. Defendant had a
pre-existing support order of $2,500 and paid $1,269.00 in child
support for a child from a previous marriage. After deducting
Defendant's pre-existing obligation and responsibility for other
children from his monthly gross income [$18,950.00-($2500.00 +
1269.00)], his monthly adjusted gross income was $15,181.00. At
this amount, the child support guidelines are inapplicable and
child support is to be determined by the trial court on a case-by-
case basis. See Child Support Guidelines, Annotated Rules of North
Carolina (2002). Thus, assuming this reduction constituted a
substantial change in circumstances, the trial court would have
determined child support by assessing the particular facts of this
case. See Child Support Guidelines, “Determination of Support inCases Involving High Combined Income,” Annotated Rules of North
Carolina (2002).
The record indicates the trial court acknowledged Defendant's
income had dropped significantly in 2002. The trial court then
considered Defendant's family related expenses and support
obligations and determined Defendant was left with a net of over
$5,000 per month for his own personal expenses. Thus, the trial
court determined a reduction in child support was unwarranted.
“Child support orders entered by a trial court are accorded
substantial deference by appellate courts and our review is limited
to a determination of whether there was a clear abuse of
discretion.” Mason v. Erwin, 157 N.C. App. 284, 287, 579 S.E.2d
120, 122 (2003). Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.4(c), “payments
ordered for the support of a minor child shall be in such amount as
to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education,
and maintenance, having due regard to the estates, earnings,
conditions, accustomed standard of living of the child and the
parties, the child care and homemaker contributions of each party,
and other facts of the particular case.” As it appears the trial
court considered Defendant's significant reduction in income and
its impact upon his ability to support his children and himself, we
conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Defendant's motion for child support modification.
Affirmed.
Judges HUNTER and TYSON concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***