Allred v. Allred

• Decision Date: 13 August 1990
• Docket Number: No. 890335-CA,890335-CA
• Parties: John Franklin ALLRED, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Gaydi S. ALLRED, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 1108

797 P.2d 1108

John Franklin ALLRED, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Gaydi S. ALLRED, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 890335-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Aug. 13, 1990.

Randall Gaither (argued), Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Vicki Rinne (argued), Highland, for defendant and appellee.

Before DAVIDSON, BENCH and ORME, JJ.

OPINION

ORME, Judge:

Appellant, John Franklin Allred, appeals from an order which requires his former wife, Gaydi S. Allred, to pay $100 per month in child support, with those payments to be deposited into an interest-bearing account earmarked for their child's college education and disbursable only on the further order of the court. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to make adequate findings of fact, in setting the level of child support at a level below Ms. Allred's ability to pay, and in ordering that the support payments be placed beyond his reach. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

The parties were divorced in 1981. For nearly five years, Ms. Allred had custody of the parties' three minor children, Aaryn, Derek, and Corey. Mr. Allred's monthly court ordered child support was $350 per child.

In January 1986, the parties stipulated to give custody of Derek to Mr. Allred and to cease Mr. Allred's $350 payment for Derek's support. Moreover, Ms. Allred agreed to "pay" Mr. Allred $100 monthly for the support of Derek. As a convenience, the parties stipulated that her monthly payment be made in the form of a credit against what Mr. Allred was required to pay, and thereafter he accordingly paid Ms. Allred $600 per month toward the support of the two children still in her custody.

In late 1987, Corey also began living with Mr. Allred. On January 19, 1988, Mr. Allred filed a petition for modification of the divorce decree requesting a formal change of custody for Corey and seeking child support. Mr. Allred was awarded custody of Corey on October 7, 1988. On December 21, 1988, a hearing was held to decide the issues of child support, insurance, and medical expenses for Corey.

The trial court made several findings. Findings concerning Ms. Allred were that 1) she earned an annual salary of $29,000; 2) Aaryn having reached her majority, Ms. Allred has no minor children in her custody dependent on her for support; and 3) she is unable to provide medical coverage for her children on the insurance policy provided by her employer. The court found that Mr. Allred 1) earned $80,000 in 1986, $52,000 in 1987, and $80,000 in 1988; 2) has experienced a reduction in his law practice during the past three years, and it is unlikely that his income in the future will equal or exceed his income for the preceding three years; 3) has two minor children in his custody dependent on him for support; and 4) purchases health and accident insurance for himself and the two children at a price of $104 per month. The court also found that, under the advisory child support guidelines then contained in the Utah Code of Judicial Administration, the total support amount recommended for Corey would be "$937.99 of which $255 was allocable to [Ms. Allred] with $683.00 allocable to [Mr. Allred]." The court declined to embrace the guideline recommendation, but also failed to find what was actually needed for Corey's support, either to assure him a level of support equal to what he would have received had there been no divorce or in terms of what would be appropriate given his present circumstances.

The court's pertinent conclusions were as follows:

1. The defendant is entitled to child support from plaintiff for the minor child Corey Allred.

2. The court elects not to apply the support amount derived from the child support guidelines.

3. Plaintiff should pay to defendant the sum of $100.00 per month ... for the minor child Corey Allred until such time as the minor child Corey Allred obtains the age of 18 years and completes high school.

....

5. The defendant shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of insurance for the minor children and solely responsible for all costs of medical and dental care not covered by such insurance.

In its findings and conclusions, the court did not explain why it elected not to apply the support guidelines or what factors prompted it to set an award significantly below that suggested by the guidelines.

In a subsequent hearing, the court ordered that Ms. Allred pay the child support into an interest-bearing account in Corey's name, rather than having it paid to Mr. Allred for the on-going support needs of Corey. In support of this order, the court made the following findings: 1) Mr. Allred had previously been given a similar opportunity to satisfy a $1000 judgment for back child support by placing the money in interest-bearing accounts for the children; 2) it would be a good thing for Corey to have the opportunity to attend college; 3) it would be more palatable for Ms. Allred than would be paying the money directly to Mr. Allred; and 4) Mr. Allred did not actually need the money to support Corey. In the latter regard, the court remarked: "I think [Ms. Allred] is right. You know, you can support these children okay. The $100.00 a month isn't going to make the difference between them having shoes and not having shoes."

On appeal, Mr. Allred argues that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact to justify the amount of child support to be contributed by Ms. Allred. He also argues that the court erred in ordering that the support be paid into an interest bearing account earmarked for Corey's college education. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of the support award and for the entry of adequate findings supporting an appropriate award.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Ordinarily, we accord the trial court considerable discretion in adjusting the financial interests of divorced parties and, thus, the court's "actions are entitled to a presumption of validity." Hansen v. Hansen, 736 P.2d 1055, 1056 (Utah Ct.App.1987). However, where the court has abused its discretion in apportioning those financial responsibilities, we cannot affirm that determination. Id. See also Ostler v. Ostler, 789 P.2d 713, 715 (Utah Ct.App.1990). One such abuse we have recognized in this area of the law is the failure to enter specific, detailed findings supporting each of the factors which must be considered when making a child support award. Stevens v. Stevens, 754 P.2d 952, 958-59 (Utah Ct.App.1988); Jefferies v. Jefferies, 752 P.2d 909, 911-12 (Utah Ct.App.1988). With this standard in mind, we analyze the adequacy of the court's findings in this case.

ADEQUACY OF TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS

At the time of this dispute, the Utah Code provided, with our emphasis, that upon a material change in the circumstances of a divorced couple, such as the change in Corey's custody in this case,

the court, in determining the amount of prospective support, shall consider all relevant factors including but not limited to:

(a) the standard of living and situation of the parties;

(b) the relative wealth and income of the parties;

(c) the ability of the obligor to earn;

(d) the ability of the obligee to earn;

(e) the need of the obligee;

(f) the age of the parties;

(g) the responsibility of the obligor for the support of others.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-7(2) (1987). ¹ This court has recognized that "[s]ection 78-45-7 requires the trial court to consider at least the seven factors listed ... [and to] enter findings on all of the factors." Jefferies, 752 P.2d at 911 (emphasis added). When the court fails to enter adequate findings on each relevant factor, it is reversible error unless the undisputed evidence clearly establishes the factor or factors on which findings are missing. Ostler, 789 P.2d at 715. Findings are adequate only if they are "sufficiently detailed and include enough subsidiary facts to disclose the steps by which the ultimate conclusion on each factual issue was reached." Stevens v. Stevens, 754 P.2d 952, 958 (Utah Ct.App.1988) (quoting Acton v. Deliran, 737 P.2d 996, 999 (Utah 1987)).

Although the court in this case entered findings on some of the factors listed in § 78-45-7(2), the findings as a whole are insufficient, especially since they omit any finding on the critical question of the total amount needed for Corey's monthly support, other than to reject what the advisory guidelines would suggest. Moreover, the findings do not indicate how the court reached its ultimate determination of $100 per month--a figure which has no discernible basis in the evidence other than it was the figure the parties previously stipulated could be paid for Derek's support when his custody shifted to Mr. Allred.

The $100 award in this case may reflect the court's erroneous view of how to fix child support in the instant context. At one point in the trial, the court had the following exchange with the parties Ms. Allred:.... But my question is, if I was able to raise three children on $33,000 a year, I question why John is asking me for child support to raise two on eighty. That's all I have to say.

The Court: All right, Mr. Allred, she is probably right....

Later, the court stated to Mr. Allred: "I think ... that she should pay something for the support of the child, although your income is greater than hers. I am going to order that she pay the $100 a month...." Finally, as noted earlier, at the second hearing, the court justified placement of the funds into a trust account by stating:

You know, you can support those children okay. The $100 a month isn't going to make the difference between them having shoes and not having shoes.... I am going to give the child an opportunity to have a little money to go to college, and it would be a good thing for him.

Each of these statements appears to reflect the view that because Mr. Allred's salary was sufficient to support the children, any amount from Ms. Allred need only be a token gesture. ² The law does not support this...