Pike v. Pike
| Decision Date | 24 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-CA-001093-ME,2019-CA-001093-ME |
| Parties | JAMES WILLIAM PIKE APPELLANT v. LORI MICHELLE PIKE APPELLEE |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE DENISE DEBERRY BROWN, JUDGE
OPINIONAFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; K. THOMPSON AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, K., JUDGE: James William Pike appeals from an order by the Jefferson Family Court denying his motion to modify child support on the basis that there were no material changed circumstances that were substantive and continuing since the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into the decree of dissolution. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties deviated from the child support guidelines by waiving all child support.
James and Lori Michelle Pike were married in 2000 and had three children. Lori filed a petition for dissolution on April 6, 2018, and a contentious process ensued.
The family court ordered a temporary parenting schedule giving James and Lori equal parenting time on a rotating schedule.
In May 2018, James filed a motion for temporary child support on the basis that Lori's income was higher than his income. The matter was referred to mediation, but no agreement was reached.
In January 2019, James filed a motion for sole custody of the two younger children. The oldest child had reached her majority. He alleged that Lori had a problem with alcohol and had driven while intoxicated with the children in the car.
James also renewed his motion for temporary child support. James argued he was paying all the children's expenses except for their private school tuition, but Lori had stopped paying their son's tuition. James provided his paystubs, estimated that his yearly salary would total about $55,000.00 for 2018, and expressed his belief that Lori was making at least as much money as he was.1
In a hearing on these issues, the family court opined that James had not provided a basis for immediate temporary sole custody but stated it would consider James's motions for sole custody and for child support at the trial.
Meanwhile, discovery occurred. James and Lori complained that the other's responses were incomplete and non-responsive and filed motions to compel.
Rather than proceeding to trial, on March 7, 2019, the parties entered into an agreed memorandum of understanding which was signed by counsel for the parties and was read into the record. The memorandum stated that James and Lori would share joint custody, continue with equal timesharing, neither party would pay child support, Lori would pay the remainder of tuition for the school year, and James would pay school fees and for extracurricular activities. The family court pointed out that the parties would need to come to an agreement as to what would happen regarding tuition following the current school year and stated the parties would have to enter into a formal settlement agreement.
In May 2019, James and Lori filed competing motions. James filed a motion requesting that Lori be ordered to pay their son's tuition as she had agreed in the memorandum of understanding because their son could not take his finals until his tuition was paid. Lori filed a motion requesting that the family court enter the written memorandum of understanding into the record.
At the hearing, the family court instructed the parties not to return to court until they had an agreement filed. In the written order, entered on May 14, 2019, the family court ordered the parties to transcribe their agreement and tender it to the court and ordered Lori to pay their son's tuition for that school year.
On May 23, 2019, the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement which they both initialed on every page and signed, along with their counsel, and submitted it to the family court. The parties agreed to joint custody and to continue in their rotating equal time schedule with their daughter. Their son would live primarily with James and have therapy with the goal that he would eventually share the same parenting schedule as their daughter. Until his therapist recommended an expansion in parenting time with Lori, their son would spend every other weekend with Lori.
Under the heading "child support" the agreement stated in full:
Neither party shall pay child support to the other. The parties acknowledge that this is a deviation from the Kentucky Child Support Guidelines. For the remainder of the 2018-2019 school year, Lori shall pay 100% of thechildren's private school tuition and James shall pay 100% of the children's school fees and extracurricular activities, which include, but is not limited to: school lunch fees, afterschool care, travel baseball, cell phones, tutoring, cheerleading, technology and PE [fees] and school trips.
On June 2, 2019, Lori moved for entry of a decree, stating there were no further pending issues. James did not respond to her motion or appear at the scheduled motion hour on June 10, 2019.
Instead, on June 11, 2019, James filed a motion to establish child support. James stated that the settlement agreement provided that if Lori will not pay the children's private school tuition, he shall be permitted to seek child support. James also stated that he is unable to meet the children's monthly expenses without assistance. James submitted a copy of his renewed motion for temporary child support and supporting documentation, noting that his income had not changed.
Lori filed a response contesting James's interpretation of the settlement agreement and asserting that he failed to follow the proper procedure pursuant to Kentucky Family Court Rules of Procedure and Practice (FCRPP) 9(4) in bringing his motion for modification.
On June 13, 2019, the decree of dissolution was entered, incorporating the marital settlement agreement by reference.
On June 17, 2019, the family court held a hearing on the motion to establish child support. After James argued that he needed child support because he was supporting his son fulltime and would now need to pay his son's tuition as well, the family court stated that James knew all of that at the time he entered into the settlement agreement and should have explored those issues prior to entering into the settlement agreement.
On July 1, 2019, an order was entered denying James's motion for child support. The family court set out a very detailed timeline in the case. The family court found that the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement, signed by both parties and counsel, providing that neither would pay child support and omitting any mention of future private school tuition. The family court noted that Lori's motion to enter the divorce decree was scheduled for motion hour, no objection was made to the entry of the decree at that time, and the decree incorporated the settlement agreement. The family court found that James failed to allege any change of circumstance sufficient to modify child support after less than a month. The family court specified that the order was final and appealable with no just cause for delay in its entry or execution. This appeal followed.
James argues he was never provided with Lori's income during discovery. He argues there is a change of circumstances because Lori is no longer paying tuition and they no longer have equal parenting time now that he has theirson all the time. James also argues he was entitled to a hearing for the family court to determine his and Lori's incomes and he was denied due process.
"As are most other areas of domestic relations law, the establishment, modification, and enforcement of child support is generally prescribed by statute and largely left, within the statutory parameters, to the sound discretion of the trial court." McKinney v. McKinney, 257 S.W.3d 130, 133 (Ky.App. 2008). We review the family court's decision on such a motion for abuse of discretion. Wilson v. Inglis, 554 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Ky.App. 2018). "[G]enerally, as long as the trial court gives due consideration to the parties' financial circumstances and the child's needs, and either conforms to the statutory prescriptions or adequately justifies deviating therefrom, this Court will not disturb its rulings." Van Meter v. Smith, 14 S.W.3d 569, 572 (Ky.App. 2000).
During the parties' dissolution, James had a right to establish child support as codified at Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.211(1). By entering into the settlement agreement with the assistance of counsel, which was then incorporated into the decree, James established Lori's child support obligation at zero. Martin v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 583 S.W.3d 12, 18 (Ky.App. 2019).
When Lori filed her motion for entry of a decree, James could have opposed it, explaining that the agreement did not resolve all of the issues and thateither a hearing had to be held on the remaining issues, or the parties needed to continue to negotiate to resolve outstanding issues. In this way, the issue of the children's education going forward could have been resolved.2 Instead, James chose to ignore Lori's motion and filed his motion for child support, knowing that the decree could be entered at any time.
Once the decree was entered, James had the option of appealing from the decree or bringing a collateral action pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial