Schuyler v. Briner, No. S-9460.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alaska (US) |
| Writing for the Court | FABE, Chief Justice. |
| Citation | 13 P.3d 738 |
| Parties | Billy C. SCHUYLER, f/k/a Billy Lemon, Appellant, v. Florence BRINER and State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 08 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. S-9460. |
13 P.3d 738
Billy C. SCHUYLER, f/k/a Billy Lemon, Appellant,v.
Florence BRINER and State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division, Appellees
No. S-9460.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
December 8, 2000.
Mary-Ellen Zalewski, Anchorage, for Appellee Briner.
Mary A. Gilson, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee State of Alaska.
Before FABE, Chief Justice, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, BRYNER, and CARPENETI, Justices.
OPINION
FABE, Chief Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
When the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) moved to increase Bill Schuyler's child support obligation, Bill opposed the proposed increase, arguing that he had worked additional overtime for the sole purpose of supporting his new family. He also requested a decrease in his child support and moved for a modification of his daughter's legal custody. The superior court increased Bill's child support and denied his request for a change in custody without holding a hearing. Because the commentary to Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 specifically contemplates that the court may consider overtime or extra jobs taken for the express purpose of providing for a new family, we remand to the superior court for consideration of this defense to a motion to increase support payments. But because Bill did not allege the special circumstances that would entitle him to a support reduction, we affirm the superior court's decision denying him a downward modification of support. And because Bill failed to demonstrate that awarding him sole legal custody would be in his daughter's best interests, we affirm the superior court's decision to deny Bill's request for a custody modification without a hearing.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Bill and Florence Lemon married in 1970 and had their daughter, Valerie, in 1983. Valerie was their only minor child at the time of divorce, but they had an older son, Billy Lemon, who is married and living in Anchorage.
Florence filed for divorce in September 1996. Bill answered, and the superior court entered a decree of divorce in June 1997. Pursuant to the Lemons' agreement, the court awarded sole legal and physical custody of Valerie to Florence, and awarded Bill visitation "as mutually agreed upon by the parties." The court also required Bill to pay $752.73 per month in child support pursuant to Civil Rule 90.3.
After Bill and Florence divorced, Bill met and married Candice Schuyler in 1998. Candice has two minor children living at home, Victoria and Sean, and one minor child in college, Kimberly. When Bill married Candice, he took her last name and is now known as Bill Schuyler. Florence is now known as Florence Briner.
In June 1999 Valerie decided that she wanted to live with her brother Billy and his wife in Anchorage. After discussing it with Billy and Valerie, Florence decided to allow Valerie to move in with them. Since June 1999, Valerie has spent most of her time with Billy and his wife in Anchorage, although Florence continues to keep "a close eye on things and stays in frequent contact with Valerie and Billy." Bill also supports Valerie's desire to live with her brother.
In addition, Florence has continued to assist Valerie financially and has passed Bill's child support payments on to Valerie's brother. For example, in June and July of 1999, Florence paid $200 for Valerie's driver's education training, $665 for her camps, $250 for volleyball fees, $476 for an airline ticket, plus additional money for clothing, shoes, photographs, and Valerie's SAT examination.
In September 1999 CSED moved for an upward modification of Bill's child support order based on its review of his income information. Bill opposed CSED's motion, cross-moved for a reduction in his child support payments, and moved for a custody modification.
In his motion to modify custody, Bill contended that Valerie's move into her brother's home constituted "a material change in circumstances and a violation of the parties' agreement." He requested a hearing to determine whether the court should modify
Superior Court Judge Peter A. Michalski denied Bill's motion to modify legal custody of Valerie, concluding that he had "failed in his pleadings to establish a significant change of circumstances justifying a modification or that a modification would be in the minor child's best interest."
With regard to child support, Bill opposed the upward modification motion and cross-moved for a reduction in his support obligation. He argued that his support obligation should not be increased because his rise in income was solely attributable to overtime worked in an effort to provide for his new family. He alleged that he took the additional overtime because he is the only source of income for his new family and that his stepchildren have exceptional medical and educational needs. He also used these circumstances to support his argument that his support obligation should be reduced.
The court did not address Bill's argument regarding the needs of his new family and ordered him to pay $919 per month in child support, pursuant to CSED's request. In addition, the court ordered Florence to pay Valerie's brother $267 per month for Valerie's support, and to pass all of Bill's child support payments on to Billy as well. Bill appeals.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Bill appeals the superior court's order denying a hearing on his motion to modify custody. A court may deny such a motion "if it considers [the] motion and finds it plain that the facts alleged in the moving papers, even if established, would not warrant a change in custody."2 We therefore review de novo a court's decision to deny a hearing on a motion to modify custody.3 We will affirm if, in our independent judgment, "the facts alleged, even if proved, cannot warrant modification, or if the allegations are so general or conclusory, and so convincingly refuted by competent evidence, as to create no genuine issue of material fact requiring a hearing."4
Bill also appeals the superior court's upward modification of his support obligation. We review modification of child support orders for an abuse of discretion.5 An abuse of discretion occurs when, based on a review of the whole record, "we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."6
In addition, Bill appeals the superior court's order denying a hearing on his motion to reduce his support obligation. Whether Bill has made "a prima facie showing sufficient to justify a ... child support modification hearing is a matter of law that we review de novo."7
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Denying Bill's Motion to Modify Custody Without Holding an Evidentiary Hearing.
Bill argues that he established a prima facie case for a change in circumstances, requiring a hearing on his motion to modify custody. In his motion he essentially argued two things: first, that Valerie's move into her brother's home constitutes changed circumstances
We first address Bill's argument that Valerie's new living arrangement with her brother constitutes a change of circumstances that justifies awarding him sole legal custody of Valerie. We have stated that in order to warrant a hearing to modify custody, "a moving party must make a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the children's welfare."8 Because family law strives to create stability for children, courts should not encourage unnecessary hearings in custody cases,9 and we will affirm the superior court's denial of a custody hearing when "it is plain that the facts alleged in the moving papers, even if established, would not warrant a change."10
We have recognized that in certain situations, a child's change in residence qualifies as a material change in circumstances.11 Because Valerie has been living with her brother, Billy, since June 1999, we agree that there has been a change in circumstances. But Bill must also make a showing that this change in circumstances justifies a change in legal custody and that awarding him legal custody is in Valerie's best interests.12
Here, Bill has not demonstrated that Valerie's new living arrangement with her older brother necessitates a custody modification in order to serve her best interests. Both Florence and Bill agreed that Valerie should live with her brother, and that was also Valerie's articulated preference. Bill even stated in his affidavit that he "support[s] Valerie's desire to live with her brother and his wife." Because Bill has failed to establish that the change in circumstances justified a change in legal custody, the trial court did not err by denying the motion without a hearing.
In his motion to modify custody, Bill also argued that Florence should have forwarded the child support payments directly to Billy for Valerie's benefit. Yet the record indicates that Florence did pass Bill's child support payments on to Billy and that she made her own financial contributions to Valerie's care as well. Indeed, in response to Bill's motion, Florence volunteered to make her own support payments to Billy pursuant to Rule 90.3.
Florence therefore did not oppose Bill's second argument in his motion to modify: that both he and Florence should have to pay twenty percent of their incomes directly to Billy for child support. And the superior court ordered precisely that, by requiring Florence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JOHNSON v. JOHNSON, No. S-13512.
...sufficient to justify a child custody support modification hearing presents a question of law that we review de novo. Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 741 (Alaska 2000). 42Horchover v. Field, 964 P.2d 1278, 1282 (Alaska 1998) (reviewing for abuse of discretion order enforcing property divis......
-
Mendel–gleason v. Harris, No. S–13496.
...19, 2009, one day before Branwen's reply was due. FN3. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 37 P.3d 424, 425 (Alaska 2001) (quoting Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 741 (Alaska 2000)). FN4. See Rowen v. Rowen, 963 P.2d 249, 257 (Alaska 1998) (citing Nelson v. Jones, 781 P.2d 964, 971 (Alaska 1989)). FN5. Se......
-
Mendel-Gleason v. Harris, Supreme Court No. S-13496
...19, 2009, one day before Branwen's reply was due. 3. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 37 P.3d 424, 425 (Alaska 2001) (quoting Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 741 (Alaska 2000)). 4. See Rowen v. Rowen, 963 P.2d 249, 257 (Alaska 1998) (citing Nelson v. Jones, 781 P.2d 964, 971 (Alaska 1989)). 5. See Boon......
-
Morris v. Horn, No. S-12514.
...v. Meyeres, 705 P.2d 921, 922-23 (Alaska 1985)). 19. Olmstead v. Ziegler, 42 P.3d 1102, 1104 (Alaska 2002) (citing Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 741 (Alaska 2000)) (child support); Faro v. Faro, 579 P.2d 1377, 1379 (Alaska 1978) (citing Curgus v. Curgus, 514 P.2d 647, 649 (Alaska 1973)) ......
-
JOHNSON v. JOHNSON, No. S-13512.
...sufficient to justify a child custody support modification hearing presents a question of law that we review de novo. Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 741 (Alaska 2000). 42Horchover v. Field, 964 P.2d 1278, 1282 (Alaska 1998) (reviewing for abuse of discretion order enforcing property divis......
-
Mendel–gleason v. Harris, No. S–13496.
...19, 2009, one day before Branwen's reply was due. FN3. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 37 P.3d 424, 425 (Alaska 2001) (quoting Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 741 (Alaska 2000)). FN4. See Rowen v. Rowen, 963 P.2d 249, 257 (Alaska 1998) (citing Nelson v. Jones, 781 P.2d 964, 971 (Alaska 1989)). FN5. Se......
-
Mendel-Gleason v. Harris, Supreme Court No. S-13496
...19, 2009, one day before Branwen's reply was due. 3. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 37 P.3d 424, 425 (Alaska 2001) (quoting Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 741 (Alaska 2000)). 4. See Rowen v. Rowen, 963 P.2d 249, 257 (Alaska 1998) (citing Nelson v. Jones, 781 P.2d 964, 971 (Alaska 1989)). 5. See Boon......
-
Morris v. Horn, No. S-12514.
...v. Meyeres, 705 P.2d 921, 922-23 (Alaska 1985)). 19. Olmstead v. Ziegler, 42 P.3d 1102, 1104 (Alaska 2002) (citing Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 741 (Alaska 2000)) (child support); Faro v. Faro, 579 P.2d 1377, 1379 (Alaska 1978) (citing Curgus v. Curgus, 514 P.2d 647, 649 (Alaska 1973)) ......