Thomas v. Thomas
Decision Date | 17 August 1999 |
Docket Number | No. COA98-1113.,COA98-1113. |
Citation | 518 S.E.2d 513,134 NC App. 591 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Sarah Lutz THOMAS (now Tidwell), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis Ray THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Corry, Cerwin & Luptak, by Clayward C. Corry, Jr. and Todd R. Cerwin, Kings Mountain, for the defendant-appellant.
Teddy & Meekins, P.L.L.C., by David R. Teddy, Shelby, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Plaintiff mother and defendant father married on 21 December 1974 and conceived three children during their union. Following their separation on 19 June 1986, District Court Judge George W. Hamrick awarded custody of the three children to the mother and ordered the father to pay $1,300.00 per month for child support—$500.00 for each of the two older children and $300.00 for the younger child.
The father complied with this order until July 1996 when he unilaterally reduced his child support to $800.00 per month following the oldest child's eighteenth birthday and graduation from high school. Thereafter, the mother filed a motion in the cause seeking modification of the original child support order to increase the amount of child support to be paid by the father.
Following a hearing on her motion, District Court Judge James T. Bowen increased the father's child support obligation from $1,300.00 per month to $1,766.00 per month and awarded the mother reasonable attorney's fees. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the father first contends that the trial court erred in modifying the original child-support order because it made insufficient findings of fact to support an increase in support. We agree.
A child support order "may be modified or vacated at any time, upon motion in the cause and a showing of changed circumstances by either party...." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-13.7(a) (1995). The moving party has the burden of showing changed circumstances. See Padilla v. Lusth, 118 N.C.App. 709, 457 S.E.2d 319 (1995).
In the case sub judice, the trial court found that:
(d) The needs of the minor children have increased since 1986 when the original child support [was] entered.
At the outset, we note that the trial court's finding as to the oldest child's eighteenth birthday and graduation from high school is an insufficient finding to show a substantial change in circumstances to support an increase in child support. Court ordered child support payments terminate when a child has: (1) reached age eighteen and (2) graduated from high school. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-13.4(c) (1995); see also Leak v. Leak, 129 N.C.App. 142, 497 S.E.2d 702 (1998).
Further, the trial court's finding that the father's child support obligation was not computed using the most recent child support statutory guidelines is an insufficient finding to show a substantial change in circumstances needed to support an increase in child support. See 1994 Child Support Guidelines (Child Support Guidelines do not apply if the parents' combined adjusted income is higher than $12,500 per month $150,000 per year); see also Taylor v. Taylor, 118 N.C.App. 356, 362, 455 S.E.2d 442, 447 (1995), reversed on other grounds by 343 N.C. 50, 468 S.E.2d 33 (1996).
Moreover, the trial court's finding that the needs of the minor children have increased since the entry of original child support order is insufficient to show a substantial change in circumstances because there is no evidence in the record relating to the reasonable needs of the children. See Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 714, 268 S.E.2d 185, 190 (1980) ( ); Brooker v. Brooker, ___ N.C. ___, 515 S.E.2d 234 (1999) ( ).
Consequently, the sole factor supporting the trial court's determination that there had "been a substantial change in circumstances such that it was appropriate ... to modify the prior" court order of child support was its remaining finding that since the initial custody order, the father's annual income had increased from $150,000.00 to $273,351.00.
It is well established that an increase in child support is improper if based solely upon the ground that the support payor's income has increased. See Greer v. Greer, 101 N.C.App. 351, 355, 399 S.E.2d 399, 402 (1991) ( ); see also Fuchs v. Fuchs, 260 N.C. 635, 133 S.E.2d 487 (1963) ( ).
In fact, this Court in distinguishing Padilla, supra, 118 N.C.App. at 709,457 S.E.2d at 319 ( ) from Davis v. Risley, 104 N.C.App. 798, 411 S.E.2d 171 (1991) ( ) stated that:
[p]roving changed circumstances based on a decrease in income was not a viable option for the supporting party in Davis because his income had increased. Thus, he needed to show changed circumstances by some other means, such as showing a change in the children's needs.
Padilla, 118 N.C.App. at 713, 457 S.E.2d at 321.
However, the dissent in the instant case cites a treatise, 3 SUZANNE REYNOLDS & KENNETH M. CRAIG, North Carolina Family Law, § 229, p. 190 (Supp.1997, 4th ed.) and Padilla, for the position that the evidence of an increase in the father's annual income "is sufficient to support the conclusion that there has been a substantial change in circumstances within the meaning of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-13.7, even in the absence of any showing that the needs of the children have changed."
Specifically, that treatise states:
[i]t now appears clear however, that a modification may occur upon a showing of a change in circumstances relating to the ability of the parents to pay support without regard to any change in the needs of the child.
3 SUZANNE REYNOLDS & KENNETH M. CRAIG, North Carolina Family Law, § 229 at 190. Nonetheless, all of the cases cited by the treatise in support of that proposition involve an involuntary decrease in the obligor's income.1 Id. In effect, the treatise's proposition applies only to situations where the child support obligor's income has decreased.2 Id.
Moreover, our holding in Padilla does not encompass a situation where the child support obligor's income has increased. See id; see also McGee v. McGee, 118 N.C.App. 19, 453 S.E.2d 531 (1995); Pittman v. Pittman, 114 N.C.App. 808, 443 S.E.2d 96 (1994). Thus, an increase in income alone is not enough to prove a change of circumstances to support a child support obligation. See Greer 101 N.C.App. at 351, 399 S.E.2d at 399; Fuchs, 260 N.C. at 635, 133 S.E.2d at 487.
Because the trial court's finding that the father's income had substantially increased was the sole ground supporting its determination that changed circumstances existed to warrant a child support increase, this order must be vacated and remanded. Upon remand, the trial court should consider whether any change of circumstances exists which would affect the children's welfare or an increase in their needs. Since, there is no evidence in the record regarding the children's reasonable needs, the trial court may admit new evidence if necessary to make findings as to the children's reasonable needs. See Ingle v. Ingle, 53 N.C.App. 227, 232, 280 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1981).
We further note that evidence and findings relating to the children's reasonable needs are necessary for the trial court's determination of the amount of support because this is not a child support guideline case. See Taylor, 118 N.C.App. at 362, 455 S.E.2d at 447 (quoting Newman v. Newman, 64 N.C.App. 125, 127, 306 S.E.2d 540, 542, disc. rev. denied, 309 N.C. 822, 310 S.E.2d 351 (1983)) ("[i]n determining child support on a case-by-case basis, the order `must be based upon the interplay of the trial that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. McNeil
-
Young v. Young
...in child support is improper if based solely upon the ground that the support payor's income has increased." Thomas v. Thomas, 134 N.C.App. 591, 594, 518 S.E.2d 513, 515 (1999) (citing Greer v. Greer, 101 N.C.App. 351, 355, 399 S.E.2d 399, 402 (1991) (stating that "[w]ithout evidence of any......
-
Parsons v. Parsons
...is adequate under the circumstances existing at the time of the institution of the action or proceeding.”); Thomas v. Thomas, 134 N.C.App. 591, 597, 518 S.E.2d 513, 517 (1999) (holding that “the court must make the following findings of fact prior to awarding attorney's fees to an intereste......
-
Shirey v. Shirey
...in child support is improper if based solely upon the ground that the support payor's income has increased ." Thomas v. Thomas , 134 N.C. App. 591, 594, 518 S.E.2d 513, 525 (1999) (emphasis in original). In Britt v. Britt , this Court held a trial court's conclusion of a substantial change ......