Maner v. Maner

2021 Ark. App. 472

639 S.W.3d 368

Thompson MANER, Appellant

v.Kathryn MANER, Appellee

No. CV-21-8

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION I.

Opinion Delivered December 1, 2021

Cullen & Co., PLLC, by: Tim Cullen, for appellant.

Brady & Platt, PLC, by: Kathryn E. Platt, Fayetteville, for appellee.

STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

Appellant Thompson Case Maner (Case) appeals the Washington County Circuit Court's dismissal of his motion to reduce child support upon a finding that there was not a material change in circumstances. Case argues that he proved a material change in circumstances, and it was erroneous for the circuit court to dismiss his motion. We agree, and we reverse and remand to the circuit court for further consideration.

Case and appellee Kathryn Maner (Katie) were divorced in December 2013. At that time, the parties entered into an agreement to share joint custody of their two minor sons; for Case to pay Katie $8809 a month in child support, with $8000 being paid directly to Katie and $809 being paid into a trust for the benefit of their sons; that if Case's child-support obligation was reduced in the future, the required payments to the trust would terminate, with all child support then being paid directly to Katie; and to divide the cost of the children's attendance at Montessori school and any agreed upon summer camps. Katie carried the children on her health insurance, with the parties paying equal amounts for premiums and any medical expense not covered by insurance.

In May 2019, an agreed order was entered acknowledging there had been a material change in circumstances justifying modification of Case's child-support obligation. The order recited that Case's child-support obligation would be $8023 a month if Katie was the custodial parent, and Katie's child-support obligation would be $2075 a month if Case was the custodial parent; thus, Case's child-support obligation was reduced to $7000 a month. The parties also agreed to equally share the cost of airfare for the children to travel to tennis tournaments; tennis lessons, tournament fees, and memberships; School of Rock fees; school lunches; field-trip costs; and any other agreed upon extracurricular activities.

In January 2020, Case filed a motion to again decrease his child-support obligation, alleging there had been a material change of circumstances justifying a modification because he had experienced a reduction in his gross income of more than 20 percent or $100 a month. Katie filed a counterpetition asserting her income had also decreased in an amount sufficient to reduce her child-support obligation used as a setoff against Case's monthly support amount.

In an order filed October 1, 2020, the circuit court found that the parties equally divided health and dental insurance premiums, with each paying approximately $200 a month; that the total noncovered medical and dental expenses over the last fourteen months were $914, with each party equally responsible for one-half; and that the parties had equally divided extracurricular and cell-phone expenses of $22,872 over the last fourteen months, with each party paying an average of $817 a month. The circuit court noted there was a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the most recent revision of the family-support chart and the guidelines was the amount to be awarded; that the child-support obligation for incomes over $30,000 a month was to be determined using the highest amount in the child-support guidelines; and that the court could also use its discretion in setting an amount above that to meet the needs of the children and the parents’ ability to provide support. The circuit court further noted that it would be sufficient to rebut the presumption that the amount of child support set forth was the correct amount if the court provided specific written findings that the base amount was unjust or inappropriate, considering the deviation factors listed in the guidelines. The circuit court found that Case's gross income in 2018 was $749,814, or $62,484.50 a month, and that his 2019 gross income had decreased to $641,617, or $53,468.08 a month. The circuit court determined that Katie's 2018 income was $153,350, or $12,779 a month, and her 2019 income had decreased to $130,929, or $10,911 a month. The circuit court, noting that it used the maximum chart amount of $30,000 per month combined income, determined that the presumed child-support order, if Katie were the custodial parent, would be $2341 a month. The circuit court stated that it had considered all the factors, including the respective income of the parties, the amount of income available to support the minor children, and the lifestyles of the parents and children, and it found that the 15 percent reduction in each party's gross income between 2018 and 2019 was not a material change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of the child-support obligation. The order did not state that the court had considered additional factors, such as the fact that the parties’ combined gross incomes exceeded the maximum level of chart support; that Case had remarried and has three children with his new wife whom he is also supporting; or the fact that his two older sons have 529 education trusts that contained $120,000 and $114,000 at the time of the hearing. The circuit court then dismissed both Case's and Katie's petitions for failure to meet the burden of proof.

Child-support cases are reviewed de novo on the record. Troutman v. Troutman , 2017 Ark. 139, 516 S.W.3d 733. A circuit court's finding of fact will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. Due deference is given to the circuit court's superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony, but no deference is given to a circuit court's conclusion of law. Id.

A change in circumstances must be shown before there can be a modification of child support; the party seeking modification has the burden of showing a change of circumstances has occurred. Hall v. Hall , 2013 Ark. 330, 429 S.W.3d 219. A change in the payor's gross income in an amount equal to or more than 20 percent or more than $100 a month shall constitute a material change of circumstances sufficient to petition the court for modification of child support in accordance with the family-support chart after appropriate deductions. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-107(a)(1) (Repl. 2020).¹ In determining whether...